Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Witney Urban District Council) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MEDICAL OFFICERS AND NURSES (LEAVE).

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 1 and 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) for what reason privilege leave out of India to all medical officers and nurses in military employment has been stopped except on urgent compassionate grounds; and whether any such restriction has been placed on any other branches;
(2) for what reason the combined leave already granted to certain medical officers in India is being held in abeyance without reasons being given?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have received no information to the effect that leave has been stopped, but will make inquiries if my hon. Friend wishes.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.

Colonel GOODMAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will cause representations to be made by the Government of India to the High Commissioner for India as to the policy of the Indian Stores Department in relation to inquiries for supplies, with a view to influencing that department to specify British products where they can be supplied rather than those of the United States of America or other foreign manufacture?

Sir S. HOARE: The constitutional position of the Secretary of State in relation to the purchase of stores is stated on pages 244 and 245 of Volume I of the Report of the Simon Commission. The matter is not one on which I can issue instructions to the Government of India. I may add that more than 93 per cent. of all the orders placed by the High Commissioner during the first nine months of this year were in fact placed in this country.

Colonel GOODMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an inquiry has recently been made by the Indian Stores Department for a supply of 10 grinders for the Indian Army, the specifications of which are wholly a Van Dorn-American concern, and the reference thereto is to a Van Dorn catalogue?

Sir S. HOARE: I am not aware of those facts. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will send them to me.

CHILD MARRIAGE.

Miss RATHBONE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the disregard of the Sarda Act revealed by the Indian Census Reports of 1931, he will ask the Government of India or the Provincial Governments what steps they have taken, or propose to take, to educate public opinion in India as to the evils of child marriage, and to carry into effect the other administrative measures recommended by the Age of Consent Committee as essential to the enforcement of legislation in restraint of child marriage?

Sir S. HOARE: I have received from the Government of India reports which show that the recommendations of the Age of Consent Committee have been very carefully considered by the Government of India and by local Governments. There is a consensus of opinion that educative propaganda regarding the evils of child marriage is desirable, but a general agreement that such propaganda is best left to non-official agencies. With regard to the other administrative measures recommended by the Age of Consent Committee the position is that local Governments are in full sympathy with the need for reform and will take such action as may appear to them feasible, but for various reasons most of the specific proposals are in present conditions not practicable.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what unofficial agencies there are that cover anything like the whole area of India?

Sir S. HOARE: I certainly would not suggest that there are agencies of this kind that cover the whole field. I hope they will increase and multiply. At the moment, the Provincial Governments think that the non-official agencies are the best agencies for the work.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Miss RATHBONE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the number of deaths in child-birth in India is estimated by Sir John Megaw, late Surgeon-General for India, as 200,000 per annum, he will request the Government of India to set up a commission to inquire into the reason for and methods of reducing this maternal mortality?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member's suggestion will be communicated to the Government of India.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the same authority quoted here, the number of maternal deaths affected one-tenth of the young wives in India and that that is associated with child marriage, and is it true that nothing will be done either by the Central Government or the Provincial Government to deal with this social evil?

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend is raising a much wider issue than is raised in her printed question, and as far as thai is concerned I am sending it to the Government of India.

BENGAL (CRIME STATISTICS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of murders and outrages generally, both actual and attempted, committed by terrorists in Bengal between 30th June and 1st December, 1933; and the number of ordinary non-political crimes, including murders and dacoities, actual and attempted, burglaries, offences against the person which involve grievous hurt or injuries with sharp-cutting weapons, and thefts taken cognisance of by the police, for 1931, 1932, and for as many months of 1933 as figures are available?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have not yet received statistics of terrorist crime later than those which my right hon. Friend supplied on the 13th November, but I will send them to the Noble Lady when available. Statistics of ordinary crime are given in the Bengal Police Administration Report.

Duchess of ATHOLL: In view of the importance of the House being in possession of statistics regarding crime of this kind in Bengal and of being able to see the extent to which such crime prevailed during this year, as compared with previous years, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to request that these figures should be forwarded as soon as possible?

Mr. BUTLER: My Noble Friend was supplied with the latest figures available on 13th November, and I have undertaken to bring those figures up to date and send them to her as soon as we receive them.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the figures with which he supplied me on 13th November in regard to terrorist crime did not carry the story further than 30th June last.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many officers of the various Government services have claimed compensation for accrued rights in respect of posts, or classes of posts, abolished since 1921; what is the total value of such claims; how many officers have received such compensation; and what is the total value of the compensation awarded?

Mr. BUTLER: My Noble Friend's question involves a good deal of research which it has not been possible to complete in the time available. I am not yet sure whether it will be possible to give a precise answer on all the points referred to but I am having the matter-looked into.

ARMY OFFICERS (HOTTSING).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps
are being taken by the Government of India to prevent houses originally built for Army officers in areas, such as cantonments, set apart for the use of troops, being occupied by persons not in Government service; what neglect of such action has cost the Government of India in building new houses and hostels since the end of the late war; and how many civil and military officers, owing to lack of houses, are obliged to live in hostels or hotels in Delhi and Simla?

Mr. BUTLER: I am assured that the situation is being carefully watched, and that if houses now occupied by non-officials, who I may mention are usually the owners, are required by officers, they are acquired by Government under the powers provided in the House Accommodation Act of 1930. I am, however, bringing this question to the notice of the Government of India, and asking them what information can be supplied with reference to the second and third parts.

SAAR TERRITORY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in connection with the negotiations on the question of the surrender of the. Saar to Germany without a plebiscite between the British and French Governments, he will see that every chance is given to the people of the Saar to decide for themselves whether they will remain under the League or pass under Nazi rule, and in any case to protect non-Nazis from reprisals?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): No negotiation's such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests are taking place. The question does not therefore arise.

JAPAN (FUNDS FOR MILITARY PURPOSES).

Captain FULLER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the sums obtained during the last two years for military purposes in Japan by public donations and subscriptions?

Mr. EDEN: According to reports appearing in the Japanese Press in 1932,
the Municipality of Osaka presented to the Japanese War Office in the summer of that year anti-aircraft equipment purchased by voluntary subscription to the value of approximately one million yen. This equipment was apparently to be used for local air defence. Similar reports earlier in that year indicated that there was also a general movement for raising funds for the air defence of Tokyo and its vicinity. I have, however, no information as to the amount which may have been raised. No reports as to the raising of money for military purposes by public subscription have reached me during 1933.

DISARMAMENT (BOMBING AIRCRAFT).

Captain FULLER: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that in most countries in Europe the strength of bombardment aircraft is being increased; and if he will press at the disarmament discussions for the elimination of bombing aircraft without delay, and endeavour to obtain agreement on that before proceeding to discussion of the general limitation of armaments?

Mr. EDEN: So far as I am aware, it is not the fact that in most countries in Europe the strength of aircraft specifically designed for bombing is being increased. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that all types of aircraft may to some extent be used for bombing. It was to meet this difficulty that Articles 34 and 35 of the British Draft Convention were drawn up. The proposals contained in those Articles continue to represent the policy of His Majesty's Government. In their view the whole problem of disarmament is vitally urgent, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, every effort is being made to achieve a general agreement covering all aspects of this problem.

Captain FULLER: Is it not a fact that it is bombing aircraft which is the main cause of the present apprehension and feeling of insecurity in Europe, and that the limitation of bombing aircraft really transcends any other aspect of the general limitation of armaments problem, discussions on which only serve to further delay?

Mr. EDEN: I think the British draft article covers that point.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Will the hon. Member consider taking the question of air disarmament out of the Disarmament Conference and making a specific treaty among the air Powers in regard to the matter?

GERMANY (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 12 and 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the British Creditors Committee, summoned to Berlin by Dr. Schacht to learn his future conditions for the German default, has returned without having arrived at an agreement; and will he now make a protest against the treatment of British investors in German public securities, including the 5½ per cent. German (Young) Loan, issued in London in accordance with Command Paper 3617, of 1930;
(2) If he will give an assurance that, in all negotiations with the German Reichs-bank authorities, he will insist upon terms being granted to British holders no less advantageous than those already agreed to, so that responsibility for any default shall rest with the German authorities?

Mr. EDEN: I understand from the Press that the German authorities intend to make a further announcement to-day. I should prefer to wait until this announcement has been received and considered before I make any further statement.

BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the latest information he has received from Rio de Janeiro as to the result of the inquiry into the ferry and tramway fares of the Leopoldina Terminal and Cantareira Companies?

Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend has not yet received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro the report asked for on the progress made by the Commission investigating the books of the Cantareira Company.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the hon. Member say what is the cause of this unnecessary delay?

Mr. EDEN: The dispatch was only sent on the 17th November, and we must give a little time for the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

NORTH SEA FISHERIES.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state his attitude towards the invitation extended by the Netherlands Government to Britain to join an international conference for the purpose of reviewing the North Sea Fisheries Convention, 1882?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have declined the invitation of the Netherlands Government to take part in an international conference for the discussion of the limited number of points enumerated in the invitation. I understand, however, that the occasion may arise in the comparatively near future for a discussion of the international regulation of fisheries on lines similar to those of Orders recently made under the Sea Fishing Industry Act of this year, which of course affect only our own fisheries. My right hon. Friend considers it preferable that any international conference should be postponed until we are in a position to invite discussion of these wider and more important questions in the light of experience of the effects of the Orders referred to. The same opportunity could be taken to introduce any other subjects which in the opinion of His Majesty's Government may require international regulation.

Sir M. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Government are likely to be in a position to extend this general invitation?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the intention is first to observe the working of the Orders, which have only recently been put into force.

Sir NAIRNE STEWARTSANDEMAN: Does not this form a record as the first conference we have refused to attend?

ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND).

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to state when he hopes to present his proposals with regard to illegal trawling to this House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Yes, Sir. I propose to introduce the Bill to-morrow.

DISEASES OF FISH.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has accepted the recommendations contained in the Second Interim Report of the Furunculosis Committee; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the committee?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I hope it will be possible to introduce a Diseases of Fish Bill this Session to deal with the recommendations of the report which require legislation; the other recommendations are under consideration.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many experts disagree with some of the findings in this report; and will he take precautions before he introduces the Bill and satisfy himself that the proposals which he is making to the House are satisfactory?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA (COMMERCIAL COUNSELLOR'S REPORT).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 16.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is yet in a position to publish a report from our commercial counsellor at Moscow on similar lines to that issued as Command Paper 3904 in May, 1931?

Lieut-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Changes are still taking place rapidly in the structure and designation of Soviet trade organisations. Lists of these are, however, being received and edited with a view to their being published in a convenient form at a suitable moment.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the hon. and gallant Member say when that will be, inasmuch as he gave me a somewhat similar reply last March?

Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: We considered publishing a document earlier this year, but, when I tell the hon. Member that there have been 100 to 200 new organisations formed in the last few months, he will appreciate that it is difficult to make a statement which is really up-to-date. We will, however, bear it in mind.

GERMANY (ARTIFICIAL HORN).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the arrangement which came into force on the 10th May last, under which Germany agreed to admit 40,000 kilogrammes of artificial horn from Holland at a reduced duty of 35 marks per 100 kilogrammes; whether His Majesty's Government has claimed from the German Government similar privileges for artificial horn entering Germany from this country; and, if so, what satisfaction has been received from the German Government?

Lieut. - Colonel COLVILLE: The answers to the first two parts of the question are in the affirmative. The German Government admit His Majesty's Government's claim in principle, but have raised certain questions of administrative detail which are now under consideration.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it not a fact that some time ago the German Government prohibited entirely the use of foreign horn in Germany, and is this declaration a departure from previous policy?

Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: I could not answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BEEF IMPORTS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state, having regard to the fact that the retained imports of beef of all kinds during the first 11 months of the present year have exceeded those in the corresponding period of last year by 5,790 cwts., what reduction in the retained imports he intends to effect during the current month as compared with December of last year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. I regret that I cannot give a precise estimate but I anticipate a substantial reduction. Imports of chilled beef from South America which represent the greater part of our imports of beef will, I expect, be less by over 11 per cent. this month than a year ago. They are subject in the present quarter to an emergency reduction of 15 per cent., as compared with the corresponding quarter of 1931. Imports of foreign frozen beef, carcases and boned beef, are subject to a reduction of 25 per cent. on the same basis over the quarter as a whole, but I am. unable to give any precise estimate of the imports of frozen beef during the current month.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has any estimate been formed of the canned beef that may be imported, and other forms of imported beef?

Dr. BURGIN: An estimate has been formed but I have not the figures with me.

Mr. LAMBERT: How comes it that there is an increase of 5,790 cwt., considering that we have been told by the Minister of Agriculture that there have been cuts of 10, 15, and 20 per cent.?

Dr. BURGIN: The answer is that imports from the Dominions have been received.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that there are no imports of chilled beef from the Dominions?

Dr. BURGIN: The Noble Lady is not quite accurate. There are some small imports of chilled beef from the Dominions.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of small holdings created during the last two years; what was their average acreage; and what was the average cost?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the figures for 1933 are not yet available I give particulars for the two preceding years. In 1931, 273 holdings were created by councils in England and Wales under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, the average size being 28¾ acres and the average
capital cost £l,236. For 1932 the figures were; 241 holdings with an average of 21 acres each, and an average capital cost of £892.

IRISH FAT CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of fat cattle imported from the Irish Free State in each of the quarters October to December, 1932, January to March, April to June, and July to October, 1933?

Mr. ELLIOT: Imports of fat cattle into this country are not separately distinguished in the United Kingdom trade returns. From returns issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce, Dublin, the numbers of fat cattle exported from the Irish Free State to Great Britain for the four quarters specified were: 85,591, 43,228, 20,869 and 57,499 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR-MAIL SERVICE.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 23.
asked the Postmaster-General how the amount of air mail despatched by the British-India air-mail service during the first three dispatches in December compares with the amount sent in three similar dispatches last year?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The total weight of letter mail despatched by the first three Indian air-mail dispatches in December this year was 6,490 lbs. as compared with 6,141 lbs. for the corresponding three dispatches last year. As, however, last year's figure includes a special bulk posting by Imperial Airways which weighed 800 lbs., a true comparison is between 6,490 lbs. and 5,341 lbs.

Captain BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of this air mail carried bears with the total first-class mail carried by other means?

Sir K. WOOD: I will try to find out and let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General if he now is in a position to estimate the results obtained by the recent air-mail advertising campaign?

Sir K. WOOD: There was an increase of 34 per cent. in the amount of letter
sir mail despatched during the period from the beginning of June this year, when the newspaper publicity campaign commenced, until the end of October, as compared with the corresponding period of 1932: It cannot be stated how much of this increase was due to normal growth and how much to publicity; but the increase during the period June to October, 1932, as compared with the corresponding period in 1931, was 18 per cent.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it proposed to continue this campaign, in view of the fact that advertising has a cumulative effect?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 24.
asked the Postmaster-General the approximate total number of invitations issued to telephone subscribers to present their friends with an up-to-date telephone apparatus; how many subscribers have accepted the suggestion; and what use it is intended to make of displaced obsolete instruments?

Sir K. WOOD: Invitations were issued tc all telephone subscribers. I am not now in a position to answer the second part of the question. The scheme is still in operation, and orders are coming in daily from all parts of the country. The displaced instruments are taken into stock and are available for re-issue to new subscribers who desire the "candlestick" instrument, which is not obsolete, but is still the standard pattern.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing the charges at Christmas time for installing and using these telephones?

Sir K. WOOD: I made a reduction two or three months ago.

NON-DELIVERED TELEGRAMS.

Captain A. EVANS: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a telegram addressed to a Piccadilly designation through the Church Place Post Office, Piccadilly, prior to 8 p.m. on a Saturday, is returned to that post office in the event of delivery not being made owing to the temporary absence of the recipient, so that actual delivery is not effected until Monday morning; and if he will cause all non-delivered telegrams to be returned to a post office which remains
open all night and on Sundays, so that telephonic inquiry can be made and the telegram transmitted by this means?

Sir K. WOOD: Such a telegram as described would be transferred at closing time to a central office from which further efforts to effect delivery would be made on Saturday night and Sunday. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any evidence that this practice is not observed, I shall be grateful if he will write to me and give me an opportunity of looking into the matter further.

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE POLES, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone and telegraph poles erected within the boundary of the county borough of West Ham during the last five separate years and the area covered by underground wiring; and whether he will in future consider consultation with the local authority when proposals are made to fix telephone poles within any area?

Sir K. WOOD: For poles the figures are: 1929, 51; 1930, nil; 1931, 43; 1932, 22; 1933, 32. During the last three years, 4,387 miles of wire have been laid underground; figures for 1929 and 1930 are not available. The consent of the council is already sought before any pole is placed in a street under their control.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called consultations with this council are really not consultations as to the desires of the local authority?

Sir K. WOOD: No. Sir, I would gladly go into the state of affairs between the council and my Department, but I understand that the council will not delegate any of their powers to any of their officers, and that they have decided to deal with all these questions in general council assembled, which hardly helps matters.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the consultations are really dictations from his Department; and will he ensure that, in future, consideration is given to the local authority's wishes before a decision is made?

Sir K. WOOD: I shall be glad to do anything I can to help, but I must remind
the hon. Member that in 1930 the council declined to grant any powers, and we had to take the matter to court and an order was unfortunately made against the hon. Member's council.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a peculiarly bad council?

TRANSFERRED FEMALE TELEPHONISTS (WAGES).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that telephone girls transferred to areas other than those in which they live are receiving a wage increase if they claim that they are compulsorily transferred but not if they volunteer in reply to his request; and whether he proposes to continue this differentiation?

Sir K. WOOD: Increases of pay are allowed to telephonists under 21 years of age who are compulsorily transferred on account of redundancy of staff. The regulations provide that when a redundancy occurs, endeavour should first be made to clear it by the transfer under voluntary conditions of officers who are already applicants for transfer to particular offices. If the redundancy cannot be cleared in this way, it is the practice to apply compulsory conditions to the telephonists whom it is necessary to transfer. I shall be glad if my hon.

—
Great Britain.
Lancashire and Cheshire.


Quantity of coal produced.
Quantity of coal conveyed by machinery.
Quantity of coal produced.
Quantity of coal conveyed by machinery.



Thousand Tons.


1929
257,907
37,150
15,659
2,057


1930
243,882
42,495
15,004
2,577


1931
219,459
47,308
14,115
2,851


1932
208,733
52,666
13,247
3,321


1933 (Jan. to Sept.)
151,330
Not available
9,698
Not available

Mr. MACDONALD: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners employed at the coal face in Great Britain at the latest date on which figures are available and on 31st December of the previous four years, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Friend will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman apply the compulsory transfer to the men?

Sir K. WOOD: We are dealing with women telephonists. I am not sure about the men, but, in any event, I will try to use compulsion as little as possible, especially to women.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

STATISTICS.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal produced and conveyed by machinery in Great Britain in the first nine months of this year and in each of the previous four years, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply involves a statistical table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.

Mr. MACDONALD: Do the figures indicate a progressive increase?

Mr. BROWN: There are 18 sets of figures, and I think the hon. Member had better do his own analysis.

Following is the information:

Mr. BROWN: As the hon. Member was informed in reply to a question on the 24th March, 1931, the only figures available on the subject are those obtained specially for the Coal Industry Commission which relate to October, 1924. The estimated number of persons then em-
ployed at the coal face in Great Britain was 482,000 or 51.3 per cent. of the total number employed below-ground. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were 42,000 and 49.9 per cent.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that all counties do issue with the balance of their monthly ascertainment the number of men employed at the coal face and the total number of persons employed at the colliery?

Mr. BROWN: There appears to be a misunderstanding. The only figures we have on the point put in the question were specifically got out after the most elaborate calculation.

Mr. T. SMITH: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity of coal produced by machinery in Yorkshire during the 10 months ended 31st October, 1933; and the total quantity so produced in each of the past five years?

Mr. E. BROWN: Particulars of the quantity of coal cut by machinery are only collected annually. The figures for Yorkshire for the last five years are as follow:






Tons.


1928
…
…
…
7,596,000


1929
…
…
…
8,372,000


1930
…
…
…
9,115,000


1931
…
…
…
9,718,000


1932
…
…
…
10,066,000

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the number of accidents that have occurred at the coal face in Great Britain during 1933 and during each of the previous four years, giving separate figures for Lancishire and Cheshire?

Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that the figures asked for are not available. I can give the numbers of fatal and nonfatal accidents due to falls of ground only at the working face during the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 for Great Britain and Lancashire respectively, and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that corresponding figures for 1933 are not yet available.

The figures are as follow:


Year.

Great Britain.
Lancashire and Cheshire


1929
…
50,983
3,384


1930
…
47,350
3,209


1931
…
40,166
2,667


1932
…
37,152
2,425

DOMESTIC SUPPLIES.

Mr. T. SMITH: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is satisfied that there is an adequate supply of household coal in the London area and that, in view of the extra demand consequent upon the prevailing weather, there will be no undue increase in the price?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have consulted the Coal Merchants' Federation who have assured me that there are adequate supplies of house coal in the London area. I would remind the hon. Member that I have no control over the price of coal, but I understand that there has been no general increase in the retail prices in London since last September.

Mr. SMITH: Is the hon. Member satisfied that the price of household coal is reasonable seeing that it is one and a half times more than is paid for it at the pit head?

Mr. BROWN: That is a question which would take a long time to answer.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he intends to take any action as a result of the report of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission?

Mr. E. BROWN: When my hon. Friend reads the report, which I hope will be laid on the Table on Wednesday, I think he will find that no action by me is required.

COAL MINES ACT, 1930.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the fact that since the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, regulating production came into operation the number of insured coal miners at work has diminished by about 130,000 whereas during the same period the number of insured workpeople at work has increased by about 660,000, he is prepared to amend the Act?

Mr. E. BROWN: While His Majesty's Government have under consideration the question of amending Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, I cannot accept the suggestion which appears to underline my hon. Friend's question that the Act is in any way responsible for unemployment in the coal mining industry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Secretary for Mines give the House the benefit of his knowledge as to how many people have been thrown out of work since 1930 owing to the introduction of the Bill of 1930?

Mr. BROWN: That is only one of the many points to be considered.

HOUSING (OVERCROWDING, FULHAM).

Mr. WILMOT: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons officially regarded as living in conditions of overcrowding in the borough of Fulham and the number of tenements regarded as unfit for human habitation; and what proposals have been made by the appropriate local authorities to deal with the situation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The information asked for in the first part of the question is not in the possession of my right hon. Friend. He understands that the London County Council consider there are in Fulham 642 unfit houses. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is awaiting a further report from the London County Council.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the hon. Member consider using the powers which are vested in him in cases of default to see that these distressing conditions are abated as soon as possible?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We must first see the response made by individual authorities, and, if they are inadequate, we shall consider what further action can be taken.

WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. LEVY: 39.
asked the Minister of Health how many regional committees have been formed to deal with water
supply; what areas they cover respectively; and what they have accomplished?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Six regional committees have been formed covering the areas: South-West Lancashire (22 authorities), West Riding of Yorkshire (142 authorities), Sherwood Area of Nottinghamshire (22 authorities), Isle of Wight (11 authorities), Holland, Lincolnshire (12 authorities) and South Buckinghamshire (six authorities). The Sherwood Area Committee has issued its report, including an agreed plan for the allocation of the water resources. The other committees are engaged in surveying needs and resources and formulating plans for future supplies. Measures have been taken for the appointment at an early date of two additional regional committees covering large areas.

Mr. LEVY: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply and appreciating the fact that two extra committees are being: formed, will he say what other steps are being taken to form other committees in other parts of the country where an improvement in the water supply is urgently needed?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is a matter for the committee which is all the time considering what new regional committees can be formed.

Mr. LEVY: 40.
asked the Minister of Health when the survey of the water resources of the country, which was begun in 1923, is likely to be finished; how much of the country has been surveyed so far; and will he consider publishing the data already obtained?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The survey to which my hon. Friend refers is the regular accumulation of information by officers of my Department in the course of their duties. The majority of the existing water undertakings have been investigated. From its nature the work is continuous, it is amplified as fresh information is obtained and is therefore never completed. Much of the information obtained is confidential and it is not proposed to publish it, nor does my right hon. Friend think that the advantage of publication would justify the cost.

Mr. LEVY: Is it not possible, in view of the urgency of this matter, to speed up this survey by appointing special officers from the Ministry to carry out the work systematically?

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Quite apart from speeding up, is it possible to consider the fact that we have had an unprecedented drought this season and winter, which makes a reconsideration of the supplies and Surveys rather essential? Is it possible to have this matter reconsidered all through the country?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It was in consequence of the drought that the Government gave the promise that will lead to the introduction of a Bill. No doubt all these questions will then be discussed.

Mr. LEVY: In view of the fact that this survey has been going on for the last 10 years, is it not possible to have published some of the data, so that we can Bee exactly what are the water resources of the country?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As I said in my reply, that would not be justified on account of the cost involved. The evidence is voluminous.

TICKHILL (BURIAL GROUND).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the proposal of the Tickhill Urban District Council relating to a new burial ground; and, if so, will he ensure that the rights and privileges of Nonconformist ministers will be safeguarded before assenting to such a proposal?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No application has been received from the council. If an application is received the representations of any interested parties will be carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT (WAR PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERR: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the extra cost involved if the whole of any wounds or disability pensions were disregarded in assessing the income of an applicant for unemployment benefit?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I think my hon. and
gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. Ex-service men's pensions are not taken into account in connection with claims to unemployment benefit. If, however, he has transitional payments in mind, I regret there are no available statistics on which an accurate estimate could be based.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can my hon. Friend take steps to obtain these statistics?

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Will he make this clear throughout the country, because we are told that the reverse is the case?

Mr. HUDSON: I hope that this question and answer may serve that purpose.

NEED TEST.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any and, if so, what estimate has been made of the additional cost to the Exchequer of a needs test based upon the needs of the individual applicant as opposed to those of the household of which he is a member?

Mr. HUDSON: No. Sir.

EXCHANGE RECORDS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 47.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the claim for unemployment benefit made by Nellie McGurn, 51, Eldon Place, Whitehall Road, Liverpool, was held up for a long period owing to the failure of the local Employment Exchange to keep proper records of her employment history; whether this is an isolated case: and, if not, will he see that correct records are kept in future?

Mr. HUDSON: I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

AIR DEFENCES (SHELTERS).

Captain FULLER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in Italy tunnels constructed for roads, tramways, and underground railways must by law be fit for use as permanent shelters against air attack; and if it is proposed to take similar precautions in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

Captain FULLER: Are we to understand that the Government consider that air attack is unlikely, or with our present defences can be easily frustrated, or that the existing facilities, whatever they are, for the protection of the public, are adequate?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, but there is another alternative, and it is that, applied to this country, what is being done in Italy is not effective.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. G. LOCKER - LAMPSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a committee to draw up draft proposals, to be submitted at Geneva, for the reform of the League of Nations, with a view to preventing further secessions from the League and promoting the adhesion of all the great Powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. Sir. I am not in favour of such a course.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that before the Government commit themselves to any foreign policy in this matter this House will have a full opportunity of discussing the matter further?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the Government will have just to act with its usual powers in a matter like this.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the Government just made up its mind that the League is to be allowed to "go phut," and that nothing is to be done at all?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not been giving that attention to the newspapers that he usually gives. Otherwise, he would have seen that that is not the case.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's reply that the Government may arrive at very grave decisions on this question before this House has an opportunity of discussing them?

The PRIME MINISTER: The position of the Government regarding the League
has been very clearly indicated in the statements made from this Box.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that the British Government are using every endeavour to keep the League going?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is perfectly true.

RUSSIA (LENA GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many issues of capital or loans were floated in this country by the Lena Goldfields, Limited, from 1925; what were the conditions of each issue or loan; and what was the total sum subscribed?

Dr. BURGIN: Particulars filed at Somerset House do not disclose that there was any public issue during the period named, but shares to a nominal value of £2,833,310 were issued at various dates. Eight per cent. Convertible Ten-year Notes amounting to £750,000 were issued in 1926. I have no information as to the conditions of the issue of the shares or of the notes.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the £750,000 referred to was dealt with by that great financier Mr. Harman, who is now in gaol for 18 months, and in those circumstances does he still think, particularly in view of the recent alleged German default, that we ought to maintain the position of German debt collectors?

Dr. BURGIN: That sems to me to be very wide of anything in the original question.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are not these losses slight compared with those inflicted on the country in two years of Socialist government?

CEYLON (PRISON ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has ben taken by the Government of Ceylon to put into operation the reforms in prison administration recommended by the executive committee of Home affairs in consequence of their consideration of the report of the Garvin
Prison Inquiry Commission in so far as those reforms necessitate amendments inthe law?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Governor of Ceylon has informed me that a Bill to make the necessary amendments to the Prisons Ordinance to give effect to the recommendations of the Executive Committee of Home Affairs was in course of preparation for early introduction into the State Council. I have not yet been informed how far the matter has progressed but I shall hear further from the Governor when the Bill has been passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SPECIAL SCHOOL INSTRUCTION (INA DRAPER).

Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: 53.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the detention in a Leeds institution of Ina Draper, age 11, of Ferrybridge, Yorkshire; why it was thought necessary to take away the girl direct from the school where she was being instructed instead of from her home; and whether the cost of this special treatment is borne by the education authorities or by the parent, who has no voice in the educational arrangements made for his daughter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herwald Ramsbotham): I have made inquiries into this case. This girl was found, after repeated medical examinations, confirmed by the head teacher of the elementary school she was attending, to be too deaf to be taught in a class of hearing children in an elementary school. As the father refused to allow her to be sent to a special school for the deaf, the West Riding Education Authority obtained an order from the court committing her to the care of Mr. Andrews, head teacher of the Blenheim Residential Deaf School, at Leeds, this being the nearest available special school. The father repeatedly refused to obey this Order, and the local education authority, therefore, considered the most effective way of enforcing it to be for Mr. Andrews to assume the custody of the child at the school which she attended. She was accordingly taken to the Leeds
school on 22nd September, 1933. The cost of her attendance at the Leeds school is being borne by the West Riding Education Authority. Under Section 65 of the Education Act, 1921, the parent is liable to contribute such weekly sum, if any, as may be agreed on between him and the local education authority. The question of a contribution by the parent is now under consideration by the authority.

Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him, is he aware that this case has caused considerable concern both locally and throughout the country; that it is known locally as the "Ferrybridge Kidnapping Case," and that the so-called kidnappers are persons—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be giving information instead of asking a question.

Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: In view of the widespread anxiety which the handling of this case by the local authority has caused to parents and guardians throughout the country, may I ask what steps the President of the Board of Education proposes to take in this matter?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: It would be improper for me to express any opinion as to how an order of the court could or should be carried out. One naturally has great sympathy with the parents of the child, but the interests of the child must come first. The child is so deaf and her speech is so defective that to give her a chance in life it is imperative that she should be educated in a special school.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will the hon.Gentle-mon undertake to have inquiries made as to how this child was taken away; and will he bear in mind that, apart from her deafness, some of the teachers say that she is a really intelligent child?

SCHOOL CHILDREN, LONDON (NUTRITION).

Mr. DUNCAN: 54.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the conclusion reached as a result of an inquiry into the nutrition of school children made by the London County Council recently?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend understands that 1,281 children in the
10 year old age group were examined, the schools selected being mainly in poor areas. Of these children 93.5 per cent. were found to be well nourished and 6.5 per cent. poorly nourished. Only two children were grossly ill-nourished. The poorly-nourished children were not found to be principally the children of the poorest parents; in fact, the percentage of poorly-nourished children of parents in full-time employment was found to be higher than the average for the whole group. In view of the prolonged economic depression, the result of the inquiry is regarded by the London County Council as very reassuring.

PASSPORTS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE).

Mr. SMITHERS: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the proposed arrangement for dispensing with passports for short visits between France and England, what steps he is taking to ensure that this privilege is not abused?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explained in his reply to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Rankin) on 13th instant, the arrangement proposed would merely secure for British tourists visiting Paris facilities which have in fact for many years been available to French tourists coming here. A most careful check is kept on the entry and departure of foreign tourists, and experience has shown that the privileges granted have not been abused. No further precautions are therefore required.

FRANCHISE (LIMITED COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government will consider the introduction of legislation entitling limited companies and corporations owning property, who are now disfranchised, to the same rights of voting at Parliamentary and municipal elections as are now granted to a private individual?

Sir J. GILMOUR: His Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce legislation on this subject.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it very unfair that corporations and limited companies which provide so large a part of the rates and taxes should have no voice in the expenditure?

ANCIENT STATUTES (PROSECUTIONS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 57.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state how many persons were prosecuted during the past year, or other convenient period, under statutes dating from the reign of Queen Elizabeth or earlier; and how many convictions were obtained?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that figures are not available,

LICENSING STATISTICS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the value of the details previously given in the Annual Licensing Statistics, he will state the grounds upon which it was decided to curtail the information in this year's report; and whether he will consider restoring the information omitted this year in future issues of these statistics?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The volume of licensing statistics has been curtailed, in common with certain other annual publications of my Department, in order to effect economy both in printing costs and in the time of officials engaged in the preparation of the statistics. Although the bulk of the volume has been reduced, with a corresponding reduction in the price, it is believed that all material of general interest and importance has been retained; but I shall, of course, be ready to consider carefully any suggestions which may be made to me for the improvement of the volume.

IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES).

Sir A. KNOX: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present duty on fat stock imported from the Irish Free
State; and what is the export bounty paid on such stock by the Free State Government?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Fat stock are not distinguished from other stock for the purpose of the duties and bounties to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the duties at present chargeable on all livestock imported from the Irish Free State and of the export bounties paid by the Free State Government on such livestock.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the disastrous position of the producers of fat stock in this country, could the hon. Gentleman see his way to increase his import duties in defence of the home producers?

Following is the list:


Duties.



Per head.



£
s.
d.


Cattle:


Under 6 months old
1
5
0


6 months old but under 15 months
2
10
0


15 months old but under 2 years
4
0
0


2 years old and upwards, other than mincers
6
0
0


2 years old and upwards, if mincers
3
0
0


Sheep and Iambs
0
10
0



Per cent. ad valorem.


Other animals
40


Bounties.


The bounties at present paid by the Irish Free State Government on exports of livestock are as follows:—



Per head.



£
s.
d.


Cattle:


6 months old and under 2 years
1
0
0


2 years old and over
1
15
0


Sheep and lambs
0
3
0



Per cent. ad valorem.


Pigs:


Exports to Northern Ireland
12½


Exports to elsewhere
25

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON TRAMWAYS (CONVERSION SCHEMES).

Sir ALFRED BEIT: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport in which districts the proposed conversion of certain tram-
way routes to trolley-omnibus in London will involve the erection of overhead wires where at present no such wires exist?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that their proposals for the conversion of certain tramway routes to trolley vehicle working would involve the erection of overhead wires in the Metropolitan boroughs of Holborn, St. Pancras, Islington and St. Marylebone, where such wires do not at present exist for traction purposes.

Sir A. BEIT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to say what would be the mileage of wires involved?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I could not possibly say that, but, of course, any proposals would have to be put in legislative form and would be submitted to the House by way of a Private Bill, so that the matter would be open to criticism.

MAIN KOADS (LIGHTING).

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will request the London and home counties traffic advisory committees to consider or to make recommendations as to the adequacy of the lighting of the main traffic routes?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I understand that the committee are already giving consideration to this question.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (COALITE).

Mr. GROVES: 28.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware of the unsatisfactory results in the use of coalite for heating the House of Commons, and that the fumes arising from this fuel have proved detrimental to the health of Members; will he discontinue the use of this fuel and authorise the use of coal; and why this fuel is used in certain parts of the building and not in others?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, though, if the hon. Member has any specific complaints of the
performance or effects of this fuel, and will let me know, I need hardly say that I shall be ready to investigate them. In view of the policy of the Government to encourage the use of low-temperature fuel, I do not propose to discontinue its use so long as it proves effective and the price is right. Coal is used exceptionally in three rooms in this building where it is impracticable to replenish as frequently as low-temperature fuel requires.

Mr. GROVES: After the all-night sitting, has the right hon. Gentleman had any reports of the unsatisfactory odours here; and, if the experiment is so popular and satisfactory, why does it not apply in the House of Lords?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is applied throughout the building, except, I think, in the Prince's Chamber and one fireplace in the Peers' entrance, and one fireplace in the House of Lords Library, where the construction of the grate, plus the difficulty of replenishing, make it impracticable, but throughout the rest of the building coalite is used, and so far from receiving complaints I have received the opposite more often. It has been represented for. some years by the Ministry of Mines that it is very desirable to extend the use of this fuel. As to the all-night sitting, I do not know what evidence the hon. Member has for saying that it was the coalite which caused the smell.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Will my right hon. Friend get information as regards the facts about coalite being detrimental to the health of Members, and refer it to the medical committee of this House? I am not yet aware that there have been any detrimental effects.

COMPANY LAW.

Mr. GROVES: 29.
asked the Attorney-General if he will give a detailed list of company promoters and directors proceeded against by the Director of Public Prosecutions since 1921 for dishonest practices, and the result of the proceedings in each case?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. and
learned Friend regrets that records are not kept in a form which would enable him to give the information asked for, and that the time and labour expended in extracting it would appear to be unjustifiable.

Mr. GROVES: Is it because the list would be such a long one that the hon. Gentleman cannot supply it; and surely, if it be not a long list, the trouble to procure it would not be great? Further, would it not be a useful document?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I gather that the question is so wide that investigation would have to take place in practically every case that has been undertaken during the past 12 years.

Mr. GROVES: If I put a more specific and detailed question before the House adjourns, shall I be able to get an answer?

BLOCK GRANTS (CARMARTHEN AND CUMBERLAND).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 38.
asked the Minister of Health how much of the block grants of 14s. 10d. and 11s. 8d. in the £ received, respectively, by the counties of Carmarthen and Cumberland is due to de-Tating of agricultural land and how much to other purposes?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As the hon. Member will be aware, the block grant is at present distributed by a method which is partly based on the loss of rates and grants and partly on a formula intended to reflect relative need and capacity to pay, and the amount apportioned to any area is available to meet the expenditure on the general services of the area. No particular portion of the present grants can, therefore, be distinguished as due to de-rating of agricultural land.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORTHING) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NEWFOUNDLAND BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

3.36 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I think there will be general agreement that we have had both an exhaustive Debate and, to many, an exhausting Debate on this Bill, but there is one thing which clearly emerges from our discussions. Whatever differences there may be as to the proposals submitted by the Government, there is nothing but good will in all parts of the House towards Newfoundland. It may well be that those who criticise our particular methods feel that the Bill was specifically directed to the interests of a particular class, but I want to assure the House that, whatever differences there may be, we honestly believe that all sections of Newfoundland will in the end benefit by our proposals. At all events, it is indeed a consolation, as it must be very gratifying to people connected with our oldest Colony, to feel that, however acrimonious may be our Debates, however strong may be the feelings expressed, in no quarter of the House is there other than a genuine desire to see that this old Colony is speedily restored to her old position. I want to assure the House that, so far as the Government proposals are concerned, there is no question whatever about any dictatorship. We believe that the scheme now submitted to the House is a scheme based upon genuine co-operation, and we hope and believe that the representatives of Newfoundland, whoever they may be, will wholeheartedly co-operate with the British Commissioners to make this scheme a success.
Naturally and obviously, there are many Members of the House who are jealous of our Parliamentary traditions and who are anxious to secure that in the discussions on the administration of this innovation—which, I frankly admit, it is—every opportunity will be given to this House not only to criticise but to make useful contributions to the new régime. That wish has been expressed from all sections of
the House. The Government feel, as Members in all parts of the House feel, that this is an innovation, a remarkable change, which may easily be fraught with many difficulties and dangers. There is no disguising that for a moment, and therefore any contribution to minimise the evil effects or to make for the success of the scheme will be welcomed by the Government. As far as it is possible within the limits of Parliamentary control, one can say that there will be the usual opportunity for questions and to challenge the Estimates of the Dominions Secretary, and if any serious occasion should arise when, owing to the policy or the administration, it is found necessary to challenge the Government, I can assure the House that that would not be resented but that every opportunity would be given for it.
Another thing which clearly emerges is the desire expressed in all parts of the House for some real development work in Newfoundland. I do not put the truck system in that category. I would look upon the abolition of that system as a real development, and any efforts that the commission can make for its abolition will certainly be welcomed by me. In the larger field of development I believe there is considerable scope in Newfoundland, and I hope that the commissioners will apply themselves to that all-important side of the problem.
I do not disguise from the House that much will depend upon the commissioners themselves; that is to say, much will depend upon the character and the ability of those entrusted with that great responsibility. No one can give a guarantee in advance, but I will give this assurance to the House, that no political colour or party allegiance or preference of any sort or kind will, be exercised in the appointment of this commission. I give the House an absolute assurance that we will appoint those who in our judgment will, by their knowledge and experience, be guided and influenced by a single-minded desire to do the right thing. No one can say more than that, and no one can go beyond saying that they will undertake a very difficult task with the best wishes of every section of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will they be allowed to hold directorships of public companies?

Mr. THOMAS: I would not like at this stage to lay down hard and fast rules. I do not know what the position of those who may be recommended will be, but I can certainly without hesitation give this assurance to the House, that I would look upon it as a disqualification and not a qualification for them to hold any other office than the one which will be entrusted to them.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman is very specific about the commissioners being free from political bias. Does that mean that political experience will be a disqualification for the men who are to take on this difficult political task?

Mr. THOMAS: I will put it in this way, that mere party influence will be a disqualification, but political experience will not be, because, apart from the question of administration, political experience will be very essential—not the political experience that is dealt with in the report, but political experience of government, though not necessarily as defined by the report. I can give that absolute assurance to the House. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), when speaking in an earlier stage of the Debate, expressed a view that found support in many quarters. It was shortly this: Why not avail ourselves of this opportunity to give direct representation in this House to Newfoundland? He based his claim on two grounds. The first, which is very important, was that the people of Newfoundland Should feel that they had in this House direct representation—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be going rather outside the terms of the Bill. We must confine ourselves on the Third Beading to what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: I thought that as there was an Amendment which was ruled out of order, I might deal with it. The second ground of apprehension, expressed in many quarters of the House, especially by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), was that instead of this country undertaking this responsibility, the natural affiliation was as between Newfoundland and Canada.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether your Ruling
prevents us discussing the question whether this Constitution will not provoke difficulties between ourselves and Newfoundland which could be removed by a particular form of action, and whether the possibility of having direct representation of Newfoundland in this Parliament will not be in order as a method of rectifying some of the difficulties obvious in the conduct of this scheme?

Mr. SPEAKER: My Ruling is only the old Ruling—that on Third Reading we must not discuss anything which is not in the Bill. I cannot say what the effect of this Bill will be.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: From the point of view of considering the situation which this Bill may bring about, should we not be in order in discussing the best means of preventing any evil result from following? Therefore, would not this question be germane to the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not if the subject is outside the terms of this Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not out of order in discussing an alternative suggestion that Canada should deal with this problem?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should say, strictly speaking, that he is.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Have not Third Reading speeches always been strictly limited to what is in a Bill, which rules out a repetition of Second Reading and Committee stage speeches?

Mr. SPEAKER: Second Reading and Committee stage speeches cannot always be ruled out, because they may be relevant to the Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: I desire to point out that I have not ignored any of the suggestions made. I must now content myself with discussing the Bill as it emerged from the Committee stage, but I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will appreciate that I did give serious consideration to suggestions made both on the Second Reading and in Committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But are we to understand that they are turned down, or not?

Mr. THOMAS: We must stand by Mr. Speaker's Ruling. I am dealing only with the Bill as it is now presented to the House, and not as several hon. Members would desire it to have been. I come straight away to the two points raised on the Committee stage which I promised to consider between now and the appearance of the Bill" in another place. There was common agreement that one thing to avoid was the creation of any impression that this was other than merely a suspension of the Constitution. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) emphasised the point that the word "suspend" conveyed an entirely different meaning from "revoke." I answered by saying that all parts of the Bill showed, on the face of things, that it was intended to be temporary, but so that there shall be no misapprehension as to the genuine and unanimous feeling of the House that this is only to be a suspension of the Constitution for a temporary period I have made arrangements, as the House will be pleased to know, for the appropriate words to be inserted as Amendments in another place. Another suggestion with which I strongly sympathise was that the Letters Patent should provide for all changes to be submitted to this House, and in Committee I gave an assurance that that point should also be looked into.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: A suggestion was made in Committee that, if possible, some instrument should be included in the Bill by means of which Newfoundland could exercise the initiative in getting a restoration of Dominion status. Has the right hon. Gentleman found that to be possible?

Mr. THOMAS: I was coming to that point later, but as the hon. Member has raised it I will deal with it right away. Shortly, the point put is this, Are we going to deal with the situation in such a way that whatever the period may be—and we all hope it will be a short period—an opportunity, I put it no higher, will be given to the people of Newfoundland to say: "We now feel that we ought to be restored to our former position"? It is very difficult in this Bill to frame a Clause to secure that object. I give the House an undertaking that we will go very carefully into the question in an endeavour to work it out, but it bristles with difficulties from many points of
view. The first point, which was in the minds of all Members who expressed doubts about it, was that there may be legitimate differences of opinion as to when Newfoundland is in a position to be restored to her former position. What steps are we going to take to enable the people of Newfoundland themselves to express their views about it? I assure the House that, while it is not possible to deal with it in the Bill, that point will not be lost sight of by the Government; it will have to be carefully considered in the future.
I now return to the question of the Letters Patent. Here the suggestion was that every instrument connected with this change ought to be laid before the House, so that the House could debate it and express an opinion. Again, I have made every effort to meet that desire, but the House will appreciate the difficulty of the time factor in the situation. On Thursday of this week the House will adjourn until almost the last day in January. No one can pretend that with the changes contemplated, and the knowledge that their Constitution is in suspense, it would be in the interests of the Government of Newfoundland—or, indeed, of ourselves—that the uncertainty should be prolonged If it is certain, as it is, that this new Constitution must be set up, there will be general agreement that, in the interests of Newfoundland herself, the sooner that is done the better. Therefore, the time factor is the predominant factor; but I do give the House the assurance that the Letters Patent will contain nothing more than the machinery to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Had it been possible to exclude the time factor, I would have gone to the extent of arranging in another place for Amendments to be put in, but seeing that the House will not meet until nearly the end of January, if these Letters Patent had to be laid on the Table, with the possibility of a Debate, it would mean somewhat towards the end of February before anything could be done. All Members of the House, whatever their views as to the merits of this Bill, will agree that if we are going to deal effectively with the situation, the sooner we deal with it the better. As it is a practical point and a practical difficulty, I have found myself unable to meet the situation.
Therefore, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I want the House to believe me when I say, that whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the procedure we have adopted, we would never have adopted this procedure were it not with the acquiescence and at the wish of the Government of the day in Newfoundland. It has been urged strongly that this is a Bill which gives a guarantee only to one class of people. The answer I give to the House is, that while it may be true that one section in this particular connection benefits, it is equally true, and certainly my judgment, that had we allowed Newfoundland to default, through being unable to meet her obligations, and we had not come to the rescue, the first people to have suffered would have been that section of the community which right hon. and hon. Members are themselves so anxious to safeguard. It would have destroyed the credit of Newfoundland; it would have rendered it- impossible for those poor people even to have continued the miserable existence they have to-day. That, at least, is our opinion, and it is because we are anxious for their interests, because we want to preserve the good name of this old Colony, because we believe that the courage which these people have displayed in the past is the best safeguard for the future, because we believe Newfoundland herself will be the first to appreciate the help of this country, because we believe that those who will be sent to help administer her affairs will be men of wide vision, practical knowledge, and working with a single-minded desire to do the best for her as well as for us, that I commend the Third Reading of this Bill to the House, and I believe that time will justify our action.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The right hon. Gentleman has moved the Third Reading of this Bill in a very conciliatory speech—a speech which we much appreciate. He has dealt with some of the points which were raised during the prolonged Committee stage, and—if I might use his words—the exhaustive
Committee stage. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was on that occasion unable to stay the course. He had to hand over the work to his very able assistants, and, may I say, speaking on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, we very much appreciate the way in which both of them dealt with the very many questions which were raised during that sitting. It certainly left no bad feeling on this side of the House. We want to meet the position in a conciliatory manner, as the right hon. Gentleman has met it, but not with the intention in any way of concealing our opposition to this Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Bill is one about which he himself is not happy, that no Government would welcome the introduction of such a Bill and that he did not know of any person who was pleased with the present conditions of things in Newfoundland.
Our attitude on this side can be made quite clear in a few sentences. We have opposed this Bill at every stage, and we shall carry our opposition into the Division Lobby on the Third Reading. Not that we have no sympathy with the people of Newfoundland—we want that to be clearly understood. Almost every Member sitting on these benches is drawn from areas which are called distressed areas in this country, areas, unfortunately, where the people are suffering acutely as a result of the depression through which the country is passing, and owing to unemployment. Seeing that suffering day after day, as we do, we have considerable sympathy with those who are suffering in a similar way, not only in Newfoundland but in other parts of the Dominions, and in every other part of the world. But we maintain that there is nothing in this Bill which is going to relieve the sufferings of the people of Newfoundland.
The right hon. Gentleman, during the course of his remarks this afternoon, made reference again to the truck system. We say that a truck system is one of the most obnoxious systems which could exist for any body of workpeople, and that it is not new in Newfoundland. It was reported upon some 40 years ago. The attention, not only of the Government of Newfoundland but of the Dominions Office in this country, was called to the system which was in operation. Unfortunately, it was continued in operation, and has brought about a condition
of things which, the commissioner who then reported upon the matter contemplated would be brought about. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, seeing that the Government of this country are making themselves responsible for the payment of interest upon the loans until the end of 1936, or at least that which will not be recovered from the finances of Newfoundland, some conditions were not applied in the granting of these financial concessions as regards some of the worst labour conditions, including that of truck? Unless some drastic steps are taken to abolish this system, which is reminiscent of medieval days, the system is going to continue.
The same can be said regarding the general conditions of the people of Newfoundland. I am sure that every hon. Member who has read the report of the commission must be appalled at the conditions still existing in that part of 'the British Empire. There are 70,000 people in receipt of public assistance, not including the aged and the infirm, and something like 25 to 30 per cent. of the able-bodied persons in Newfoundland are in receipt of public assistance. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman again that that is no new condition of things? There have been these recurring periods when the major portion of the people of the Island have been in this condition. Much might be said as to what is and who is really responsible. A good deal can be said about the system of government, about the corruption, the graft and all those things which have been talked of during the passage of this Measure through the House. I would that the Dominions Office itself had taken a greater interest in the work that was done by the Government in that Dominion. We must remember that it is not only the conditions of the people from the point of view of their daily requirements, but I must say that I was appalled when I read that a very large portion of the population was without the necessary medical requirements and attendances. One part of the report referred to the fact that 6,500 people, spread over an area of something like 150 miles, were without even the services of a nurse or a doctor, and that the number of doctors in that Island has been reduced by something like 36, or 25 per cent., during the last 25 years. It is not because we have
not sympathy with the people of Newfoundland that we have adopted the attitude we have during the process of this Measure through the House.
I would like to put one or two pointed question to the right hon. Gentleman, or his Under-Secretary, who is going to reply. Were the facts which were disclosed in the report of the commission brought to the notice of his office before the commission went out to Newfoundland? Did the Governor, who acted on behalf of His Majesty's Government, or as the representative of His Majesty in that Dominion, make the Dominions Office in this country conversant with the conditions under which the people in Newfoundland have been living for the last 30 or 40 years? Did it know of the terrible conditions of the working people, of the truck system, the maladministration, the corruption, the unbalanced budgets and the continued borrowings? After all, the right hon. Gentleman has occupied his present position for some three years, but it was not until last year that action was taken by his Department in dealing with the difficulties with which this Dominion is confronted.
We should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) who was Dominions Secretary for five years, from 1924 to 1929, whether he was aware of the conditions which existed in this island. If he was, why was no suggestion made as to what should be done regarding the proper administration of the island? The Dominions Secretary shakes his head. I agree that the Government could not intervene in the administration, or the finances or any matters pertaining to the government of the Dominion, but I have in mind what I read in the Report of the Commission regarding the advice and suggestions which were made in 1898 by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. His attention had been drawn to certain concessions which were proposed by the Government of Newfoundland, and without much hesitation he gave his advice as to what the result of those concessions would be, going so far as to say that they would be nothing but graft, and that the condition of affairs which has now arisen would arise.
From then until the present time, advice may not have been sought, but it
has certainly not been given. I am not sure whether the Governor of Newfoundland has given information to the Dominions Office in this country as to the conditions prevailing in that Dominion. Only when it was realised that the Government of Newfoundland could not meet their financial obligations did the Government of this country intervene. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on the Financial Resolution, said that in the autumn of 1932 it had become apparent that Newfoundland would not be able to meet her obligations. To tide over the interval until further investigations had taken place, this country, without any investigation, but simply upon information or upon an intimation which had been received at, I take it, the Dominions Office, undertook, with the Dominion of Canada, to meet the financial obligations which Newfoundland could not meet. Had it not been for the fact that the Government of Newfoundland could not meet those financial obligations, we have no doubt that the conditions about which we complain would have continued until a crisis had arisen, without any attempt by the Dominions Secretary, or any occupant of his office to deal with those conditions.
Some of us are rather alarmed at the extent of the financial obligations which have been undertaken by this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that £550,000, which has, or will be, voted in the near future, is a free gift by the Government of this country to the—an hon. Friend of mine says "bondholders," and I think that that needs no qualification—to the bondholders. Not only is that money to be given to the bondholders, but the financial obligations which have been undertaken under this Bill until the end of 1936 will mean, as far as it is possible to ascertain, something like £2,000,000 to the British taxpayer. That money might very well be used to relieve the distress of the people in this country. If a portion of it went to the relief of the distress of the poor people in Newfoundland, we on these benches would have very little to say, and that will be true, I am sure, of my hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway.
Every penny of the money provided by this Bill will be used for the purpose of paying interest to the bondholders, who must have known of the financial condition of Newfoundland before they loaned
their money. The bondholders have done remarkably well as a result of this Measure. One of the hon. Members for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), in the course of a very interesting speech, warned the Government as to the precedent which they were laying down, and as to what was likely to happen if the practice were extended in any way. Interested as we know he is in financial problems, he did not hesitate to tell the Government, the House and the country how the bondholders have already benefited by the action of the Government in introducing this Bill. He gave figures to show that the value of the bonds has increased. I have his statement. He said:
The securities of the Newfoundland Government a short time ago stood at 55; they stand at 100 to-day.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1933; col. 258, Vol. 284.]
In a very short time the value of Newfoundland securities has nearly doubled. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) referred in his speech to the fact that in the very short time of about 24 hours, once the information had got into the City, the value of Newfoundland securities jumped from 71 to about 95. A number of hon. Members of this House to whom I have spoken have wondered how that information got out as quickly as it did. They say that they would like to know how the information percolated through to some of the financial sharks who are always ready to take advantage of anything which is being done by the Government to guarantee security for any loan or any bond with what is really the security of this nation.
The result is that about £1,000,000 has already been made out of the action of the Government in guaranteeing Newfoundland securities. As another of my hon. Friends rightly says, it is a ramp, and one of the worst ramps which we have experienced in this country for some considerable time. We cannot see that the financial proposals of this Bill will assist in meeting the conditions of the poor people of Newfoundland. In his speech this afternoon, the Dominions Secretary said that the Bill was ultimately bound to assist these people, because if Newfoundland went into default, the poor fishermen and workpeople would suffer. I doubt very much whether their conditions, judging from the evidence of the Royal Commission's report,
could be reduced by 1 per cent. from what they are at the present time. Information was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his speech in regard to the cuts in education, expenditure on which has been reduced by something like one half. War pensions have been reduced, and so have the grants from the public assistance authorities. The amount paid in public assistance last year worked out at something like 1.60 dollars per head of the recipients per month.

Commander MARSDEN: It is 1.80 dollars.

Mr. HALL: I am told it is 1.80 dollars, and yet we are informed that if Newfoundland defaulted the condition of the people might be very much worse. If they lost that, I do not think they would miss very much. The financial responsibility of the Government of this country does not end with the giving of this £2,000,000. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there will have to be a period of development, and that the Commission will have no easy task. They will have to settle down to developing the various industries, including fishing, timber and agriculture. Not only have the conditions of the people deteriorated during the last 10 years, but those important industries have either stagnated or begun to decline. The fishing industry is worse than it has been for a very considerable time; agriculture is worse than it has been for years, and there is no possibility of development of the timber or timber-products industry unless something is done to nourish it. That must mean that more money will have to be spent.
We are anxious that the Letters Patent should be laid upon the Table before anything definite is done. We see and appreciate the difficulty with which the Government are faced—the difficulty of time and the urgency—but before Thursday we want the right hon. Gentleman to be able to announce to the House who will be the commissioners to be appointed to undertake the very important work of rebuilding this part of the British Empire. We hope that all interests will be represented, including the working-class interests of the people of Newfoundland. Notwithstanding the difficulties associated
with the government of Newfoundland, we believe that people drawn from the ranks of the working people could serve a useful purpose because they are confronted with the difficulties complained of in the Royal Commission's Report. At least one member of the Commission should be drawn from the ranks of the working people, because such a representative would be in a position to give good counsel and advice as to how the development of the country could take place.
In conclusion, I would repeat that our hostility to these proposals is not because we do not desire to assist the people of Newfoundland. The people who are suffering there have our sincere sympathy. But we can see nothing in these financial proposals which will bring any advantage to those people. The people who have benefited already, namely, the holders of Newfoundland securities, will continue to benefit. They will receive the whole of the £2,000,000. The development of the industries of Newfoundland is urgently to be desired, rather than a continuance of the condition of things which has prevailed in that Dominion for the last generation, and we ask that the right hon. Gentleman and those who will be acting with him on behalf of the British Government will see that any money spent will be spent in the real development of those industries, and not ladled out to the speculators who have come in and have left Newfoundland in the condition in which it is at the present time.
We would like to see some of those industries developed by the Commissioners themselves. Private enterprise has brought Newfoundland to its present position—private enterprise which was followed by graft and corruption and greed—and we say that an opportunity should be given for some other form of control and ownership. There are vast possibilities in the industries of cod fishing, deep sea fishing, timber and agriculture, and we believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman and those who will be acting with him desire the good will of the people of Newfoundland, those people must be trusted. They must be given to understand that a new era is to be opened for them, and that, instead of their being dependent upon those who have deceived them in the past—poli-
ticians or industrialists—the Government of this country is going to see that they are given a square deal and that their industries will be developed, not in the interests of a few people, but in the interests of the whole of the people of Newfoundland.

4.33 p.m.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I am very glad, as one of several Members of the House who accompanied the delegation to Newfoundland in 1925, to have an opportunity of congratulating the Government on this Measure. I think that anyone who has had the experience of Newfoundland that we had will be glad to give this help, and I was rather surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), as I remember, as no doubt he does, that he offered a good deal of help at that time, and I do not think his remarks now can be construed entirely as expressive of gratitude for that hospitality. As, however, he had recently been Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, perhaps he took matters a little more seriously than he does now. During the discussions in Committee a fear was expressed, I think on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that there was a chance of Newfoundland leaving the British Commonwealth of Nations. Personally I would much prefer to look upon Newfoundland as a prodigal child seeking to return to its parents, and I think that that simile much more aptly fits the case.
I am sorry that some hon. Members seem not to look upon it in that way, because I must say I appreciate the fact that Newfoundland is Britain's oldest Colony, and I should like to feel that she would prefer to keep with us instead of going elsewhere. If the people of Newfoundland have better views, I hope they will be allowed to express them. It was this idea which led me to join with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in an Amendment—which, however, was ruled out of order—by which we thought we might ensure some representation for people whose Constitution will be for the moment suspended. I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Dominions said that he
would give full consideration to that among other matters in the future.
There has been a great deal of criticism on the financial side of this question, and we have heard a great deal about the holders of bonds and others getting benefit. That may be so, but I feel sure that, however much we may criticise those who may be holding a few bonds, none of us would like to see those bonds thrown on the market and go to a price which would sadly deteriorate the credit of the British Empire. It seems sometimes to be forgotten that very often bonds, and particularly English holdings, are held in great measure by people with very small incomes. The sole idea of the Opposition seems to be that these bondholders are necessarily wealthy people, who are making a very good thing out of it. It is true that some of these stocks have appreciated, and questions have been asked as to how the news got out, but, as far as one can see, the financial statement and the Bill itself made it quite clear what was going to happen, and there is no mystery about it. It also seems to be forgotten that a number of these bonds carried a higher rate of interest, and the prices of these have unfortunately dropped. One does not hear anything about that. I feel that, unless Newfoundland is given financial support, we really cannot help its people. They, after all, have taken drastic steps, as we had to do some two years ago. Are we forgetting that lesson? They, however, are not in a position to come out of it as we did, and, therefore, I think it ill behoves the Opposition to criticise the help which the Government are giving. For that reason I cordially support the Government in this Measure.

4.39 p.m.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to detain the House for very long, but I want to give the reasons why I cannot support this Bill. As the Dominions Secretary has told us, nobody in the House welcomes the Bill. I certainly do not, and I shall vote against it. I am in favour of giving assistance to the people of Newfoundland, and, if the people of Newfoundland represented the Prodigal Son, as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Colonel Crookshank), I would not
mind killing the fatted calf, but I strongly object to giving money where it is not going to the real sufferers. The real sufferers in Newfoundland from the maladministration which has been going on are the people of Newfoundland, and I notice that both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary maintain that this Bill will give help to the people of Newfoundland. We have been told that the Royal Commission has examined every possible alternative, and has come to the conclusion that the course followed in this Bill is the only course possible, and I think the right hon. Gentleman said that, if we do not do this, the unfortunate country of Newfoundland will never be able to borrow again, and its industries will be crippled, apparently for ever.
That is the kind of thing that we have heard many times in this House during the last few years. I remember that we used to hear it in 1931, and I could not help recalling the fact that other countries had faced up to these situations. France, if I remember rightly, repudiated something like four-fifths of her liabilities, but that apparently bankrupt country was the one that helped us out in 1931. We were paying 20s. in the £, and yet we had to go to that country, which had paid 4s. in the £, in order to borrow money; and if France wanted money today I do not now think that the fact that she had repudiated would prevent us from going to her assistance. Italy repudiated, I believe, something like five-sixths, and I hesitate to say what our own position is at the moment; but the fact remains that the industries of the countries which I have mentioned have not been crippled, and their people, on the whole, are enjoying a pretty good standard of life.
I am getting a little weary of this country constantly guaranteeing various sums of money to people in this country who hold certain stocks. We have been told very eloquently of the sufferings of the people of Newfoundland and the burdens that they bear, but I represent a part of this country where a large section of the community have suffered under very heavy burdens for a long period of time. I have in mind in particular the dockyard town in my constituency, which was
created by Government. The whole expenditure of that community was incurred because Government had put the community there, but some seven or eight years ago a Government came along and just closed the place down. Unemployment has averaged 50 per cent. ever since that time. Therefore, I think the House will understand me when I say I am getting a little tired of our always coming to the assistance of people outside our own country, and cannot understand why we should keep on doing it.
I have every sympathy with the people of Newfoundland, but this country itself has been very hard hit, and has experienced depression ever since the War. This is the one country in the world that has never participated in the booms that other countries have had. We have had a steady core of unemployment, as we have been reminded so often from all quarters of the House. If we are going to give money—and I personally would like to help in this case—I should like to see it given where it is going to produce the greatest benefit. If one reads th report of the Royal Commission, one finds that the fisheries and the various industries of Newfoundland can be helped directly, and I would prefer to see whatever assistance we make up our minds to give given to those industries, which, after all, represent the potential wealth of the Island.
I should like to refer to another point. Why should the holders of this kind of stock be treated differently, in these hard times, from other people? There are many holders of stock in this country—decent hard-working people—who have been asked in the past few years to forego their interest. Some people, unfor-tunatly, have had their money in companies which were rather like this Island, corrupt, and they have lost, as we all know, millions of money; but the Government do not come; to their assistance, because they take the view that they ought to know what they are doing, and the same thing applies to the holders of stock in this case. But there are other companies which are not corrupt, which have been well handled but, through causes over which they have no control, are not in a position at the moment to meet their interest charges. In this case what happens? The shareholders agree
to forego for a time any interest due to them, in the hope that by doing so they will enable the company to weather the storm, because they believe in it and hope that in the future they will get back what they have lost.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the only alternative was to do nothing. I do not agree with him. My objection is not to assisting Newfoundland, but to the manner in which it is being done. May I again quote the analogy of the ordinary industrial company. We have seen, especially in the last few years, numerous cases of companies which through no fault of their own are in serious difficulties. They bring forward a scheme of reconstruction. If the assets of the company are of value, they do not have any difficulty in raising money for that purpose, but I think they would have considerable difficulty in raising the money if it was to pay interest to existing shareholders. The money is raised in order to reconstruct the company, to prevent it disappearing altogether, and to enable it to make the best use of its assets, so that in time not only the people who come to its assistance but the original holders may save something from the wreck and in time the normal rate of interest may be restored. Why can you not do the same here? Here you have a country which has enormous assets. That is admitted on all hands. The present shareholders unfortunately have got on to a rotten thing for the moment, but there are enormous assets there. Why not take the money with which you propose to pay interest to existing shareholders and use it in developing the Island of Newfoundland and at the same time do everything you can to assist the distress that is prevalent among the people?
There are two things that we want in our Dominions. The first is a stable and a sound Government. Under this Bill you are taking steps to see that that is given as far as it is in your power to do so. What is the next thing? We know the enormous potential wealth of this Dominion, and, if you want development there, you will get plenty of people to come forward to develop it provided in the first place that you have a sound and stable Government and the assets are there. We know the assets that she has in her soil and in the waters around the coast. I ask the Government why they
will not use this money, now that they have arranged for a Government that may be relied upon, to help the cod fisheries, and for research in various agricultural developments, the timber, the mining, and all those things which we know exist under the soil. If they would only do that, they would certainly have my support, and I believe it would be a far greater help in the development of the country and the restoration of its prosperity and, in doing so, I believe they would be founding the prosperity on a basis which would lead, not as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the beginning, to restoring her—

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have read the report. How could we take over the Government of Newfoundland except at the request of the Newfoundland Government?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that most of this money is going to pay interest to existing holders? He should ask them to forgo it for the time being?

Mr. THOMAS: And take over the Government?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: You are going to do it. They are asking us for a favour. They are asking us to come to their assistance. Are we to throw money about as if we had so much that we did not know what to do with it? If we are to give them help, we are entitled to ask for some conditions. Or has the Government got in such a state that they will say "Yes' to anyone who asks for anything? You have been asked to assist Newfoundland and you are prepared to do it, but my argument is that you are not doing it in the right way. I would rather help Newfoundland by developing the country so as to increase its assets instead of paying interest, not to restore her to her old position, but to build so that in the future the people of Newfoundland will see a prosperity that they never dreamed of.

4.52 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I have not spoken during these Debates, but I have followed or read most of the arguments and have voted consistently in support of the Government. I think
the Bill is undoubtedly necessary, and I shall support it's Third Reading. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) who has just spoken addressed himself more particularly to its aspect towards the bondholders, or the moneylenders, or those who hope to receive some benefit from the position taken up by the Dominions Secretary in giving assistance so far as the Newfoundland securities are concerned. He asked that certain people should forego interest. He compared the position with that of an industrial company and asked why Newfoundland could not be treated on the same lines. A number of trustee securities are mentioned in the Second Schedule which, I presume, are on what is known as the Treasury List. A Dominion or Colony needing money, which cannot borrow in its own territory, comes along here and says to the Treasury: "If we will conform to certain of your rules under the Colonial Stock Act of 1900, will you allow our loan to go on the Treasury List so that trustees may be allowed to hold it, and, if you will, we shall be able to borrow money in Great Britain for the development of our territory at a much lower rate of interest than would otherwise be the case." The Treasury says, "If you will conform to certain regulations, we will allow you to put it on the Trustee List." That, I take it, is one reason which has not been particularly explained to the hon. and gallant Gentleman by the right hon. Gentleman why we now come in and in some degree help to support the credit of the Colony.
Who are the moneylenders or borrowers who hold these Newfoundland securities on the Trustee List? They are not banks. They are not moneylenders, but especially trustees. I am a trustee for a certain charity, and we hold these securities. They are for the most part held by trustees generally, for deceaseds' estates, for hospitals, and, in some cases, I am given to understand, these securities are held by the great insurance companies. Insurance companies do not hold them for their shareholders, but for policy holders. They are securities in which the premiums of the life policy holders are placed so as to secure them in case of death. Through insurance companies or trustees the bondholders in many cases are people of small means. The stock
holders, therefore, have some right to look to the Government which has led them to regard the stock as of trustee quality by allowing the securities to go on to the Trustee List. I do not hold the same view about the deferred list in the First Schedule, and not on the Treasury List. I am not so certain that I would have given them even 3 per cent., because they were not on the Trustee List.
I was in Canada before the War—I have some family connection with the Eastern side of Canada—and I heard then that things were going very wrong in Newfoundland. We have heard in Debate the very ugly word "corruption," and we have been told here that corrupt politicians have taken advantage of innocent hardworking honourable men, a splendid set of brave fishermen. It was not unknown to me or to any Government 20 years ago that all was not right in Newfoundland. I think the Colonial Office and Treasury should have come down earlier with a warning, if not with a heavy hand, and have said: "We are not going to allow this to go on. You are on the Treasury List. If you want to borrow again, we will not allow you to borrow in this country unless you put your finances right." The Treasury would have been faced with the accusation of Downing Street interference. I believe on many past occasions the British Government might have interfered in a friendly guiding way with certain Governments of His Majesty's Dominions across the seas and have said: "When you ask us to put you on the Treasury List, you must enter into an undertaking to do certain things: but you must continue to carry out the spirit of that undertaking so as to keep your financial status as good as it was when yon issued the loans we put on the Treasury List, or we shall refuse permission for you to claim entry to the Treasury List for any further issue on trustee terms, for low rates of interest on the loan." It might have exposed the British Government to an accusation of Downing Street interference. It might have been a justified complaint by the Dominions or the Colonies that we were interfering. But on the other hand the interference would have been justified and in the best interests of Newfoundland and other similar of our sister States. I blame some Colonial Secretary and the Treasury in
earlier years for not putting their foot down and saying: "We are not going to allow this unfortunate state of affairs to continue in Newfoundland." We know all about it. Although the report of wrong government is not official; it is in everyone's mouth." Had they done so we should not have had the need of this Bill to-day. That is all I have to say.
The Bill should be a warning to us. I think that what the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) said the other day was very just. It has opened a new vista and created a precedent which one day we may have to face. But the remedy is this. Stocks of the Dominions and Colonies are on the Treasury List and receive trustee status. The Dominions are able to borrow their money more cheaply here than they can borrow it at home; they can borrow without stint, let alone at 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent. If they come here and borrow and wish to get on to the Trustee List they must be prepared for having strong friendly Treasury interference with any flaws or maladministration in their finances, in order that they shall not present to the world a series of unbalanced budgets and impair the security of the lenders by allowing conditions to exist different from those in which they obtain entry to the Treasury List of trustee stocks.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am somewhat shocked at the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). He is telling the House now that he knew all about this matter eight years ago.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I did not say eight years ago; I said it was a few years before the War. It was not my secret; it was world-wide knowledge.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Gentleman must remember that since that time the position has been becoming progressively worse. He says that it was no secret, and he has been Financial Secretary to the Treasury since that time. He said that he wanted to give the House the benefit of his mind this evening on the Third Reading of the Bill. I wish that he had given us the benefit of it some time ago when holding an official position, and then he might have prevented us from having this Bill at all. There is
an extraordinary number of people who are wise after the event, and they increase most alarmingly. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been specially interested in Newfoundland, because, besides having been Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he is well known as an author who has specialised in the study of the fishing problem. He has published and distributed pamphlets, and has even written letters to the "Times" on the question of deep-sea fishing.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: No letters.

Mr. MAXTON: I may be wrong; it may have been the "Morning Post." His counsel, wisdom and experience, which would have been very valuable to the House eight years ago, have only been given to us at this recent date. May I correct one misstatement which he made? He told us that he had taken part in the previous discussions on this Measure.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: No.

Mr. MAXTON: Those were his opening words.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I did not say that I had taken part in them.

Mr. MAXTON: He followed the earlier proceedings on the Committee stage, but his interest in the Committee stage ceased at 10.40 p.m. I am not criticising the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman in going home to bed, but merely the correctness of his statement that he sat through the previous discussions on this Bill. I do not want to re-fight the fights of the earlier stages. The right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary might have made suggestions at some of the earlier stages which would have modified the final form of the Bill, but he has reserved his remarks to the Third Reading, when they can have no effect upon the final form of the Bill. I must leave him to his own conscience in that matter. Fortunately, my conscience is clear, because I made many good suggestions to the Dominions Secretary between the first introduction of the Measure and the final stages, and I do not propose to go over the previous discussions. The Dominions Secretary, in rising to present the Bill for the Third Reading, asserted very strongly that the Bill is not in the interests of a class, and
he asserted with even greater strength that it is not dictatorship. I think that he protested a little too much. It is obviously in the interests of a class and of those who hold stocks. It is interesting that it is only on the Third Reading that we hear the voice of the stockholder raised; it is definitely thanking the Government for coming to the assistance of the stockholder.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I am not a stockholder. I have no direct interest whatever.

Mr. J. JONES: You only speak on that issue; you never speak on anything else.

Mr. MAXTON: I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is actually a holder of Newfoundland stock, but he is speaking for the stockholders, and he deliberately trotted out the very old argument about the widows and the orphans among the stockholders. I have never heard stock discussed in this House but what it was mainly held by widows and orphans. I should like to find out about the stock in which other people who are not widows and orphans invest. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is not in the interests of a class, and that if the particular step proposed in the Bill had not been taken the first people to suffer would have been the poorer section of the community. If the right hon. Gentleman's legislation had been directed towards relieving the distresses of the poorer section of the community there would have been something in its favour. I do not think that any section of the Opposition has suggested for a minute that nothing should have been done in the case of Newfoundland. No one has made such a suggestion at any stage. When the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) was talking about the miserably low status of the unemployed people out there an hon. Member behind me said: "They would have been worse still if the Government had not come in with this Measure." But the Government could have come in with another Measure to double the present unemployment allowance to those people and make it 16s. a month instead of 8s. a month and maintain that rate for a long period of years and still have been spending only a fraction of the money the nation is asked to spend under this Measure. Why talk about the sufferings of those
people when nothing is done in the Measure to relieve them in any degree. As far as this House is concerned the unemployed fisherman in Newfoundland is to remain on a pork, molasses and flour ration, and there is no guarantee that that is to be continued. It states in the report that that has been the measure of public relief to the unemployed fishermen.
I say definitely that this Measure was brought forward primarily in the interests of a class, and of a class of people who may not be resident in Newfoundland at all, and who, probably, are not resident in Newfoundland. It is probably an entirely different set of people to-day from the set of people who were holding Newfoundland stock when this legislation was first contemplated. Obviously, there has been tremendous Stock Exchange gambling on this Measure, and presumably since prices have varied so much, stock has changed hands, and the widows and orphans who are to be safeguarded when the Measure becomes law are an entirely different class of widows and orphans from those who were to be safeguarded by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no dictatorship. I ask him honestly, man to man, what else is it? As far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned, it is a dictatorship. It may not be dictatorship relative to this House, but, as far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned, our Government is to walk in and impose a Government upon them. They have no say whatever as to who the Members of that Government are to be and as to how long they shall remain in control of their affairs. They have no power whatever to remove those people from office. It is true that the existing Government of Newfoundland have agreed to this being done. The proposal has never been submitted, and will not be submitted in any shape or form, to the people of Newfoundland.
If that is not dictatorship, I do not know the meaning of the word. Even Hitler has consulted his population. [Interruption.] Well, he may have done it under conditions which make for a very clear answer if not for an absolutely honest answer. He gave them an opportunity. What does the Dominions Secretary do? He knows better than Hitler. He is not going to give them a chance. Hitler took the risk that he might have
an answer that he did not want. The Dominions Secretary is not taking any risks of that description. That is dictatorship. The Dominions Secretary has told us that these men who are to go out on this mission are to be the very perfect English gentlemen, perfect gentlemen of the old-fashioned type, and are to be chosen without political influence of any description whatever. I do not know how the Dominions Secretary is to find them or what method he is to adopt, because he will have to do it very quickly. They have to be away on the Atlantic Ocean inside the next three weeks or else all the excuses for rushing this Measure through the House will have gone. Unless they are on the job and working before I come back after my Christmas holidays, I shall want to know what about it.

Mr. HANNON: Did not somebody suggest that the hon. Gentleman himself might go?

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, but the hon. Member who suggested it knew perfectly well that I am thoroughly satisfied in the place in which God has placed me. Rather than go out and watch Newfoundland on the spot, I prefer to watch the man who is watching Newfoundland from here. I should like the hon. Gentleman who replies to the Debate to tell us exactly how the Minister proposes to get before him the names of appropriate persons. I hope he is not going to evolve them out of his own inner consciousness. I hope that he will be listening to recommendations from one person and another, and I think the probabilities are that the persons who will be making suggestions and recommendations will be politicians. I am not objecting to the right hon. Gentleman taking suggestions from political people, but I want him to take them from political people of repute whose recommendations can be trusted to be not merely a desire to get a job for a friend.
I should also like to be told—I do not think that there is any mention of it in the Measure or in the report—what salaries are proposed to be paid to the commissioners. Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind an appropriate figure for the remuneration to be paid for this class of work? Can he say whether it is to be a flat rate for the whole six or whether it is to be on a time basis or on a piece basis? I also want to know if the
salaries of the three British representatives are to be borne on the Dominions Office Vote, and, if so, will that represent a payment to Newfoundland in addition to what we are undertaking to pay under the Bill? I assume, but it might be well to make it clear, that there is no question of the three locally chosen commissioners being paid for out of the funds of the Dominions Office.
There is a promise that an endeavour will be made to abolish the truck system in Newfoundland. My knowledge of the fishing folk round our own coasts leads me to believe that the whole of this fishing industry while they may not be actually under the truck system are very near it. The risky, gambling nature of the enterprise makes somebody who is going to carry risks and give extended credits almost a necessity in the fishing ports. That person, if he be a tradesman or a shop owner in the port carrying riskB or giving extended credits, is not imposing a definite truck system on the fisherman, but he has certainly a strong claim on their customers' custom. In that way, by having customers tied to him, he is able to extract prices which would not be possible in t'he ordinary open competitive field. Unless there is somebody carrying the fisherman's risk you will never make much headway in getting rid of an open or a concealed truck system. I should like the commissioners to consider whether it is within their province to shoulder the risks of the fishermen which are very great. I am not talking now of the dangers of their trade, but of the financial condition that operates; the fact that when a man gets a poor catch he obtains good prices, whereas if he has a good catch he obtains bad prices. He does not know where he will be as a result of the fishing season until all these things have been added up, with the cost of his boat, and his gear, and prices have been averaged out over the period. That risk has to be carried by somebody, and, if it is to be carried by any private enterprisers, then you do not get rid of the truck system.
The only other point to which I would allude is the promise of the Dominions Secretary that there will never be any attempt made to burk discussion in this House or to refuse facilities for discussion about the future operations of this scheme for rehabilitating Newfoundland. I am glad to have that assurance,
although I wish there had been inserted in the Bill a provision by which the whole operations of the commissioners could come up periodically and regularly before this House, so that there would be a routine opportunity of discussion. I know that we are all keenly interested in the affairs of Newfoundland to-day. We all have our minds made up that we are going to watch future developments there with a closer interest, and seize any opportunity to raise any point that we think needs to be given publicity or discussed in this House; but Newfoundland is a long distance away and other things come along to distract our attention. Home affairs and the condition of our own people are very present to our minds, and in the absence of regular correspondence, somebody over there who is interested in having questions raised here, we may lose touch.
It is an extraordinary thing, and it is my experience for the first time, that I have not received correspondence on this subject. Whenever I have prominently associated myself with a particular interest, whether here, in West Africa, in Australia, or in any part of the Globe, communications have come from that particular place, or local newspapers have been sent to keep one in touch with what the people on the spot are thinking; but I have not had one single communication of any description from start to finish on this Newfoundland business, which indicates how completely detached and bound by their Island the people of Newfoundland are, and how very far away they are from having something like a labour and working-class movement over there. That makes me feel that it would have been much better if the affairs of Newfoundland could have been brought before this House in a routine way rather than that it should depend upon me or some other Member of the Opposition taking some particular points that would justify a set Debate.
I suggest to my hon. Friends above the Gangway—I do not know what facilities they have, and probably they are little—that the one way in which I can see democracy preserved under this dictatorship is by the development of some working-class movement in the Island. I hope that interests outside this House who are concerned with working-class organisa-
tion will endeavour to stimulate in the Island some movement that will begin to direct attention to the needs of the common people of Newfoundland and direct attention away from the interests of those who have endeavoured to reap the maximum wealth at the expense of the natural resources of Newfoundland and at the expense of the people of Newfoundland. The Bill is about to go to another place, and it will there be accepted as it is. I think it is a bad measure and that it will not produce the results that the Government expect. The problem of Newfoundland could have been handled in an infinitely better way. I do hope and trust that whatever happens out there, the men, women and children in that Island will be relieved from the terrible distress and worries that have hung over their heads for so many years.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I do not intend to keep the House for more than a few minutes, but I want to raise one or two matters, because I had not the opportunity of speaking on the Committee stage. The Dominions Secretary said that he would bear in mind a point that was raised in Committee, to which we on this side attach some importance. I want to italicise the promise that he has made. In the Committee stage great importance was attached to the suspension rather than the revocation of the Newfoundland Constitution, and the right hon. Gentleman has now promised that in another place the word "suspension" will be inserted in place of the word "revocation." A suggestion was also made from this side that some means ought to be provided to enable the people of Newfoundland to put an end to the state of affairs to which this Bill will give rise. The people of India have claimed that at some reasonably accessible date Dominion status should be conferred upon India.
If Dominion status is being taken away from Newfoundland, it is reasonable to ask that the people of Newfoundland should be entitled to claim at some reasonable date in the immediate future that their Dominion status should be restored. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to give consideration to that matter. He has suggested that perhaps he might be able to come forward, not with a new Bill, but in the immediate future with a suggestion by means of
which that which is desired can be brought about. I do not want to add to his embarrassment. I listened to the Debate in Committee with great interest, and I understood that many of the arguments against putting a date in the Bill were substantial, in view of the domestic situation in Newfoundland. Nevertheless, we on this side think that the Newfoundland people as well as this House should be allowed an opportunity of exercising the initiative of getting at least a discussion as to whether Dominion status should or should not be restored.
The Dominions Secretary, either in his speech or in an interruption in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), said that it was impossible for us to suspend the Constitution of Newfoundland unless we promised to carry the debt. I do not understand that. He said that the Government of Newfoundland were only prepared for His Majesty's Government to come provided we accepted full responsibility for the debt. That makes the existing Government of Newfoundland as corrupt as previous governments. It was under the aegis of previous governments that loans were contracted and the debt accumulated. The Commission found that their conduct was corrupt in the extreme, and if the present Government insists that the existing debt shall be carried by His Majesty's Government then they represent the bondholders rather than the people of the Island and are. therefore, open to the same charge of graft as previous governments.
It seems to me that the people of Newfoundland would be infinitely better off if the debt were wiped out. It is claimed that if the debt were wiped out the credit of Newfoundland would also be wiped out and that they would not be able to get money for contemporary purposes. Do I understand that the whole of the revenue of Newfoundland is to be spent in Newfoundland, and that it will still be able to carry the whole services of the debt? Of course not. About 60 per cent. of the revenue of the Island is attached for the purposes of the debt. The existing revenue would only be sufficient to support the people if you wiped out this 60 per cent. and devoted the whole of it to the immediate assistance of the people. But the right hon.
Gentleman says that the people of Newfoundland would suffer if the debt was wiped out. His contention is not in accordance with the facts of the case.
I do not understand the policy of His Majesty's Government not only in the case of this debt but in the case of all similar debts. Some time ago the House discussed the Austrian loan, and hon. Members in all parts of the House expressed grave doubts as to whether it was good policy to support such loans. Many people who claim to know something about world finance hold that it is the load of inter-governmental indebtedness which has accumulated since the War which is largely responsible for a continuance of the crisis. In the modern world there has been a great accumulation of certain forms of claims upon wealth; trustee stock, inter-governmental indebtedness of various kinds, insurance lendings, where insurance companies in order to meet the claims of their policy holders have to invest their money in gilt-edged securities; all thsee people, whenever debtors get into difficulties, are so powerful with Governments, and the consequences of default are so grave, that they are able to persuade Governments to come to their rescue and attach the revenues of the State to a particular class of security. That means that borrowers are being kept artificially alive by various Governments and are not in a position to borrow the new money which is necessary if development is to continue and if new markets are to be found.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that Newfoundland would not be able to borrow money if they default on their existing debt, the answer is that the whole history of finance and industry is against him. It has been argued that the medicinal effect of a long period of depression is to wipe out debts on the part of bad borrowers, who then again become credit-worthy, but that if a debt is not wiped out but remains as a dead loan no further borrowings are possible. I do not put this forward as an academic proposition. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) laughs, but I have heard Conservative speakers in this House and on the platform argue and say, "What are you Socialists complaining about, wealth is not piled up from
generation to generation, and periodically there is a slaughter of the financial innocents "—

Mr. HANNON: A slaughter of what?

Mr. BEVAN: A slaughter of the financial innocents—

Mr. J. JONES: He is not one of them.

Mr. BEVAN: —in order to get the system together again. That has-been the contention, and, as a matter of fact, there is a substantial degree of truth in it. But since the War the burden of intergovernmental indebtedness has so increased that the slaughter does not take place to the same extent as previously.

Mr. HANNON: As far as I know no Conservative Member has ever suggested that we should destroy national credit in order to begin over again.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member is getting far away from the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that the Bill is necessary in order to support the credit of the Dominion; that if Newfoundland was allowed to go bankrupt all Dominion stock would fall. That is also the argument of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel), and I submit that my remarks are entirely relevant to that issue. I am arguing that that is not the case at all, and that this kind of legislation is responsible for the continuation of the financial crisis. It sags and sags, and the dead wood is not cut out The borrower is kept artificially alive because the creditor in a post-war world is more influential with governments than he was pre-war. That is the position. I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will support my contention because at the World Economic Conference he said that his financial policy was devoted to world inflation. What is the purpose of world inflation?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member forgets that on the Third Reading we can only discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: My recollection is that in the earlier part of the Debate, when we did not have the honour of your
presence, a long discussion took place on precisely this point. This Bill is a Measure to come to the assistance of the Newfoundland debt because it is argued it will bo bad for Newfoundland and bad for Dominion securities generally if we do not. My argument is that the Bill is bad because it in fact does this, and that the people of Newfoundland will not be able to raise money for the development of their resources because of this burden of bad debt. I would ask hon. Members to consider what is going to be the position if we are to get a series of Bills of this kind; if the world crisis continues and other raw material producing countries, Dominions or Colonies, fail to meet their debt services. Are we going to come [...] their rescue one after another? We shall have to decide either to carry out of successful policy of inflation and wipe out half their debts or to reconstruct their debts when they fall due, as we have in this case. If we had written down this debt, or adjusted it to its real value, taken the value of the stock a few months ago before there was a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman was going to come to the rescue, taken it at its market value, or wiped out a large part of it, we should have been doing our duty to the world financial system, and particularly to this country. By this Bill you are treating certain forms of property as favoured.
I agree that under the present financial and credit system it is a serious thing to default upon trustee stock, but it is equally serious for this sort of stock to maintain an indebtedness and thus make it impossible for portions of the world to commence expansion and development schemes and provide markets for our own industries. The Government is pursuing a policy of international deflation and at the same time is supporting the value of the present stock. I do not support the system. Let the whole thing go; it is not our concern. I am pointing out the disaster which will overtake capitalist countries if this sort of policy is pursued. It is not justified by any canons of healthy finance, and certainly not by the traditions of this House. We are setting aside a democratic constitution not for the benefit of the people but against their interests in order that a certain class
of property holder may have his securities retained unimpaired. These observations I maintain are relevant to the quesiton; many of them were made in the ease of the Austrian loan. I submit that this sort of financial policy requires the gravest scrutiny. If it is pursued to any length of time this House is going to undertake immeasurable obligations in all parts of the world as one part after another defaults. Such a course of conduct is bound to result in disaster for the system that hon. Members opposite support.

5.45 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: The last speaker is such a high financial expert that I certainly shall not attempt to criticise him, for equally I cannot follow him. My own financial point of view is much more old-fashioned, much simpler and perhaps easier to understand. It is that one should not default and one should pay one's debts. That, I think, is also the point of view of the inhabitants of Newfoundland, because it is largely for that purpose that they have come to us for assistance. Having compared the points of view of those who support the Bill and those who are opposing it, it seems to me that those who support the Bill wish primarily to assist distressed persons. Incidentally they may be helping the bondholders. The opponents of the Bill are so afraid of helping the bondholders to any extent that they are prepared not to support any measures that we may take to help the distressed people of Newfoundland. They continually say that the money, some of which we have given and some of which we are to give in the next few years, is to be used only for the purpose of helping the bondholders. I do not think that that is quite right. The interest on the various debts is surely a first charge on the income of a country, and consequently you have to meet that charge before any money is available for other purposes; and the money we give is to be a sum over and above the existing income of the country. So it would be more correct to say that the money we are giving will be actually for the purpose of relief and other purposes within the Dominion or Colony of Newfoundland.
The question has been debated so much that I do not wish to overdo it, but as this small amount of relief amounts to only about 3d. per day, I think everyone would wish it to be greatly increased. It has often been suggested that it should be given to the full extent, as in this country. That, of course, would be wrong, because the people who live in Newfoundland have many sources from which they can support themselves without payment of money—sources which are unavailable to the people of this country. In fact if we did so we should follow in the steps of a very bad period of Newfoundland's history when relief was given to such an extent that the Royal Commission in the report state that:
Reckless and indolent habits were general, and so general was the distribution of relief that a great majority of the industrial population soon learned to disregard the stigma of pauperism. They claimed public assistance as a private right.
It is extraordinary that a year after that all public relief was lifted. Then, because of the greater effort that was necessary, Newfoundland entered upon a fresh era of prosperity. Still that does not mean to say that at the present time I do not favour giving these unfortunate people who need it the utmost relief with the money that we provide. There has been some talk by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) about dictatorship. Surely he appreciates that this is a form of governing the Island which has been asked for by the inhabitants. At any rate they have asked for us to come to their assistance and have practically said that they would accept what we thought desirable. It is equally reasonable to say that when they feel that once again they can govern themselves, we shall not be backward in again ceding to their wishes.
If there was no future for Newfoundland this Bill indeed might be a foolish and reckless Bill, but every word in the Royal Commission's recommendations shows that there is a good future for Newfoundland. It is not that there has been a tremendous deficit in any one year; it is the continual deficits year after year which made the position not so good. In the last 12 years the public debt incurred has been equal to the public debt that accumulated in the 100 years previously. By our taking over the various loans and being able to satisfy the bondholders at
a lower rate of interest we shall meet about three-quarters of the deficit as it stands this year. The prospects on the whole, as the commission say, are quite sound. Certainly the fisheries have gone down. The export of codfish has gone down enormously. On the other hand the salmon fisheries are ten times greater than they were 14 years ago. There are the pulp industry and mining and other things which do rather fill one with hope that better times are in store.
There is one paragraph in the Bill which points out that the greater part of the export of fish, although there was an opportunity of exporting by British lines, the Furness Lines, has been shipped by Scandinavian tramp steamers and other foreign lines. It seems to me that a great opportunity may be lost here both for assisting our own shipping industry and also helping the exporters from Newfoundland. If any benefit can be gained here it would do a great deal to satisfy the people of this country, who in the long run have to provide this money.
I must again refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton. I gathered that, having freely criticised the Bill, he now realises that in order to help the poor people of Newfoundland he has to assent to this Bill. I understood him to say that in the last few words of his speech. But he seemed to have some misgiving as to the Governor of Newfoundland. I know that gentleman. He was an old shipmate and is a friend of mine, and I cannot imagine anyone more capable of holding the reins fairly, of guiding the Commission and doing his best for the Island. In short we are asked to give relief to one of our poorer Dominions. Whatever criticisms we may have to make, wherever we may think that the Bill falls short of what it might be, surely we in this country are big enough and still rich and generous enough to help Newfoundland in her distress.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I am glad, and I am sure the House must be glad, to hear from the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that very high testimonial to the Governor who is to be at the head of the Commission and is to carry on the work in Newfoundland. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) regretted the
fact that we shall not have much opportunity of discussing the finance of Newfoundland, but am I not right that these advances are on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and that on that Bill we shall have an opportunity every year of discussing the finances of Newfoundland? The Secretary of State said that he would welcome any suggestions that might be made and that he would consider them. I would draw attention to one fact which has struck me with regard to past finance. According to the second Schedule there were certain advances made by the Canadian banks, and these were specially secured. As I understand the Bill, the second Schedule securities, the trustee securities, are now a first charge. I would like to emphasise that any additional advances that are made should be a first charge, that is to say that the Candian banks cannot come in again and by making advances again come in any sense before any sums that are advanced from this country. In other words all advances, whether they are trustee securities or further advances which may be made from time to time, will be a first charge on the revenues of Newfoundland. We see from the Appendix that the Canadian banks certainly took very good care that they were secured, because they were paid out in cash. No less than 5,600,000 Canadian dollars was repaid in cash to the Canadian banks.
This Bill has been debated fairly thoroughly. The spokesman of the Opposition who moved the rejection of the Bill described it as a ramp. Really I do not think he seriously meant that. Does he suggest that the British Government would be engaged in some dishonourable undertaking? He gave one example. He said that bonds have risen from 55 to par, and that that was evidence of the ramp. He said that the benefit went entirely to the bondholders. Surely he does not seriously contend that that is so. Anything that improves the credit of Newfoundland benefits everyone. This rise helps not only the bondholders, but improves the credit of Newfoundland. There was the improvement in British credit which resulted in the conversion of War Loan to 3½ per cent. All stocks, the local loans of councils included, were affected. Of course that benefited the holders of stocks, but it also benefited this country, to such an extent that the
conversion of the debt will lead to a saving to the taxpayers of this country of something like £38,000,000. Is that not an advantage to this country? Must it not equally be an advantage to Newfoundland if her credit is re-established? Will she not be able to borrow on a lower basis for development purposes? Do hon. Members suggest that if Newfoundland had been left to her own resources she would now be able to borrow?

Mr. A. BEVAN: Does the hon. Member not remember that in 1931 this country defaulted for a considerable amount of money, and that two years after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to his embarrassment, had to explain that too many nations wanted to leave their money here?

Mr. MASON: I do not think the going off the Gold Standard in 1931 is comparable or analogous. In fact there is no analogy whatever. It was an embarrassment certainly, but it was not by any means a default. If we can restore the credit of Newfoundland, that will facilitate her ability to borrow further sums for development purposes. Reference has been made to the resources of Newfoundland. It is self-evident that if you take the proportion which other securities bear to British credit, from the most speculative to the gilt-edged, in moving up they are in a sense governed by the high standard of British credit. If, by lending our credit to Newfoundland, we are going to help the fishermen, as I understood the hon. Member for Bridgeton to admit at the conclusion of his speech, then that is something upon which we can all agree. I therefore appeal to hon. Members above the Gangway to consider whether a unanimous decision on the Third Reading of this Bill would not be an appropriate gesture on the part of the British House of Commons as showing the spirit in which we extend this aid to Newfoundland.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I associate myself with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) in asking the House to give a unanimous decision in favour of the Third Reading of this Bill. As he suggests, it would be a gesture of great moment, not merely to Newfoundland but to the whole Empire, in relation to the establishment and maintenance of this
country's credit throughout the Empire. I desire to express my profound regret that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who would make an invaluable contribution to the reconstruction of Newfoundland if he offered his own services on the proposed Commission, cannot see his way to do so. The benevolent and beneficent influence which the hon. Member could exercise on the people of Newfoundland would, no doubt, bring them to a sense of their duty to their nation and to themselves in connection with the work of reconstituting the country under the new regime

Mr. MAXTON: I am on the home mission.

Mr. HANNON: I wish to put one or two questions to the Under-Secretary. First, will he tell the House something more about the personnel of the proposed commission? Who are the persons whom it is hoped to secure to carry out the responsible duties attaching to the new form of government and to what extent will the country be burdened by expenditure on the maintenance of the Commission in Newfoundland? Secondly, will he inform us whether any instructions or advice will be given by the Secretary of State to the Commission in regard to the reorganisation of the Civil Service in Newfoundland. If ever there was a tragedy in Civil Service administration, in the Empire it has taken place in Newfoundland, and I see no hope for the regeneration of that country even under a benevolent administration unless the Civil Service of the island undergoes in complete change. Thirdly, I wish to ask whether any instructions will be given to the new administration to take charge of agricultural organisation. My right, hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who is now engaged, apparently, in an interesting conversation on academic economics with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), is particularly anxious that all schemes affecting Colonial development should have relation to the land. As he may not have heard my third question I repeat it. I am asking the Under-Secretary whether any scheme of re-organisation, in relation to agriculture or land development, is contemplated by the Commis-
sion which is to take charge of the affairs of Newfoundland?
In view of what the hon. Member for Bridgeton has said, I wish to point out that loans invested in Newfoundland were invested for the development of its resources and, on the face of the report, those resources are almost incalculable and are capable of immense development. There is no reason to decry the possibility of Newfoundland discharging all its financial liabilities in the future if it is given the opportunity of sane and wholesome government. The object of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to give Newfoundland sane and wholesome government which will enable its resources to be developed to the fullest extent. But I hope that the new administration will so educate the people of Newfoundland that we shall not have any repetition in that country of governments of the quality with which we have been familiar there during the last 12 or 14 years. It would be an everlasting discredit to our Imperial relations if governments of that quality should ever be repeated in the administration of that Dominion. I support the wise and statesmanlike steps taken by the Secretary of State to help Newfoundland in its difficulties. I hope that the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, that the House should not divide on this Motion will be responded to, and that there will be an unanimous decision on this question, which is of such profound Imperial importance. In that connection, I would specially appeal to the hon. Member for Bridgeton, who is one of the kindliest and gentlest characters in this House, and for whom we have all the greatest possible respect notwithstanding the fact that oceans roll between us on certain vital questions. I am sure that he will see the importance of making a gesture of the friendly character which has been suggested, to the people of Newfoundland. Such a gesture will indicate the anxiety of the people of this country to help our Dominions when they are in difficulties.
At the same time, I hope that the measure of relief contemplated in the Bill will not be taken as a precedent in dealing with difficulties in other Dominions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I hope that investors in this country will under-
stand that when they put their money into a trustee security in a Dominion, they have to take a certain part of the risk themselves, and that the British taxpayers will not be called upon again, should maladministration in any other Dominion bring about a state of affairs such as has arisen in Newfoundland. It should be made clear that there can be no repetition of this sort of arrangement as regards other Dominions. It is not to be taken that a precedent has been created in this case which will be followed. But I hope that the House will unanimously give a Third Reading to the Bill, as an act of generosity and consideration to the people of this Dominion in their difficulty.

6.8 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am in a difficult position. I cannot make up my mind how to vote. Not even the speech of the eloquent Member for the Moseley division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) solves my problem. It is true that by this Bill we are enormously improving the security of money invested in Newfoundland. We are improving the credit of Newfoundland, but in so far as we are doing so we are injuring our own credit.

Mr. HANNON: No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are injuring our own credit to an indefinite extent. Suppose some other Dominion, which shall be nameless, is in difficulties next year or the year after, a Dominion whose Government has not been corrupt, a Dominion which has been driven by the low prices of its raw materials to default, how will it be possible for any Government to refuse the proposition that that Dominion should be treated as Newfoundland has been treated?

Mr. HOWARD: Will it give up self-government?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is one of the prices. But take another case. How will it be possible for a Government to resist an appeal on similar lines from any of our municipalities? Their stocks are trustee stocks and the main argument for the Bill is that we must now allow default on trustee securities. This is not an academic point. This is a frightfully dangerous precedent which we are creating. It is no use saying that we hope this kind of thing will not occur again, because, whatever Government is
in power in future, this precedent will be used against them to force their hands. I said I was in some difficulty as to how to vote. I am in that difficulty because this precedent was created, not by the introduction of this Bill or the report of the Commission—it was created when we stepped in six months ago and prevented default. It was then that stocks rose, and no wonder. The real danger is that by improving credit at one spot, pro tanto you diminish your own credit.
Let me come to the second argument—that this is being done for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland. Of course, it is not being done for their benefit. The people would be just as well off if they defaulted. That is the lamentable lesson that we have learned. Every country has defaulted in turn. Every time they defaulted not only the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) but other people, including myself, thought that their default must have all the results of bankruptcy, and that they would never be able to borrow again. But to-day, although France defaulted on four-fifths of her debt, she can borrow more cheaply than we can. The people of Newfoundland will not be injured economically nor will they be improved economically by this change—unless the administration is a better administration. This is a question of what are we going to get for the money. As I work it out we are paying about £12,000,000 of the British taxpayers' money as security. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] What we are getting for it is a vast undeveloped territory. I want to know whether the property which we are acquiring is going to be administered so that it will be an asset, equivalent in value, to the people of this country, for the money which they are paying.
There is another question. It is not only the Dominions that are affected by this precedent. It will obviously apply to Colonies which we are governing ourselves, such as Kenya and Nigeria. Why should those countries be forced to go into the market and borrow at a higher rate of interest than they would pay if they were borrowing on British security. Kenya borrows at 5 per cent. when they could get the money at 3½ per cent. on British guarantees. We know now that in future if these countries fail to pay interest on their loans we shall come to
their assistance. But do not let us lose on the swings and on the roundabouts as well. Do let us enable those countries to borrow more cheaply, and if we are going to give guarantees, do not let us leave it to bondholders to profi by a rise from 55 to par when we know that, in this long run, we have to pay. No. this is not a question of the benefit of the people of Newfoundland. It is a question, for us, of whether the payment of this large sum, whatever it may be, is to have a value to the people of this country and I hope the new administration will take that point of view into account.

Mr. SMITHERS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that France is borrowing more cheaply than this country. I have not the figures, but my impression is that she is borrowing at a considerably higher rate than this country. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman quote figures to prove his point t

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No. I have not figures here to prove my point, but I think that over the last two years France has been able to borrow, both short term and long term, cheaper than this country.

Mr. SMITHERS: My impression is quite the contrary.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member may be right. The Stock Exchange is rather a speciality of his, and I take it that he is probably correct. But the credit of those countries which have gone off gold, or have repudiated debts, is infinitely higher to-day than either he or I conceived possible five years ago. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that if we are going to do this sort of thing, it is as well to have British credit behind it beforehand instead of afterwards.
Let me pass from the point of finance to ask how they are going to develop this property. In the Report of the Royal Commission there is a distinct recommendation that there should be taxation of land values in Newfoundland in order that the land may come into the hands of the State and may then be used for development purposes. I shall have absolutely no use for this new Government if they do not take that elementary precaution of getting back for the State land which has been, not sold, but given away to all these concession companies. It is of immense importance to us that
those commissioners, not only the men there, but those from this country, should be men not interested in any way in land development companies or in companies out there. I put that question earlier in the Debate. If you have vested interests enthroned on that Commission, you will never get your tax on land values in Newfoundland, you will never get the land of Newfoundland back for the people of this country or of Newfoundland, and you will never get the opportunity of settling people in that country and developing the property on commercial lines. That is an important detail, because it affects any chance of making a success of this new venture of ours in governing a colony across the sea.
There is a third point that makes it very difficult for one to decide whether we are bound to implement this gift or not, and that is as to whether or not we are setting up a dictatorship. Nobody in this House loathes dictatorships more than I do, and nobody is a greater admirer of Parliamentary institutions, and I could not support a scheme which definitely set up for all time an irresponsible dictatorship, responsible to the people here, but not responsible to the people who are governed. This is also a question of precedent. Newfoundland may not very much matter, but it does matter if the principles applied in the case of Newfoundland were to be applied generally by His Majesty's Government. You get round the whole difficulty if you have representation here. If we are to vote for this Bill to-day, we really ought to know whether we are going—though it is true that it cannot be dealt with in this Bill—in future to allow for the representation of Newfoundland in this Parliament, so that we can deny—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a point which Mr. Speaker ruled cannot be discussed on this occasion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not raising the point, and I do not hope for a reply, but I am indicating that whether I vote for the Third Reading or not must obviously depend upon whether this is going to be for all time a dictatorship or whether the Government can hold out hope that even under this scheme some system of representative government can continue. The Letters Patent have not
yet been revoked, and the new Constitution has not yet been set up, so I presume we cannot solve this problem by question and answer in the House, but I think we might have an indication on that point as well as on the nature of the commissioners who are to be set up. One has heard whispers as to who the High Commissioner is going to be. I do not pretend to be a judge of the matter—I do not know the man—but I would remind the hon. Gentleman, when he says that we are going to have no politicians dealing with this proposition, that the Duke of Wellington became one of the worst politicians when he took up the job, and nearly produced a revolution in this country; and I think it would not be desirable to put somebody entirely excluded from political life into a position where knowledge of politics in the best sense is a vital element in the successful conduct of the experiment.
We have here a really great departure. It is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that it is a precedent which will be used in the time to come; it is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that we cannot indefinitely improve British credit and at the same time spread British credit over the world; it is no use blinking the fact that this is a commercial proposition, and whether we make out of Newfoundland something that will give satisfaction to the people of England as well as of Newfoundland, until we see the new Government in operation we cannot tell whether we are going to make a success of the thing or not. I hope that the hon. Member, in replying, will say something about the commissioners, something about their carrying out of the recommendation in the report which I consider vital, and something, even as vague as he cares to make it, which will allay our fears of a permanent dictatorship by this country over a non-self-governing Dominion.

6.22 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): We appreciate very much indeed the helpful spirit which has animated all hon. Members who have spoken in this Third Heading Debate, and I can say quite honestly that the chief impression left on my mind by the whole series of Debates is that all hon. Members, in whatever part of the House
they sit, are only anxious to do what is wisest for the Newfoundland people and the people of this country as a whole. That does not mean to say that we have been able to agree, all of us, as to exactly what the wisest course is, but I believe that there is really a great deal more agreement between us than some of the violent Debates would indicate. However, before I come to that matter, I should like to answer two or three questions which have been put to me.
I have been asked by two or three hon. Members whether this is not a dangerous precedent, whether it will not allow other Dominions, for instance, to consider that if they get into similar financial trouble, this is an indication to them that they can come and ask us to get them out of it. I can state definitely that this is not to be taken as a precedent at all, but, quite apart from the question whether we, for our part, are ready to consider an appeal of that kind coming from another Dominion in the future, let me remind hon. Members of the terms upon which we are coming to the aid of Newfoundland. We have agreed to bring to them this financial assistance on condition that self-government is given up in Newfoundland for the time being, and that we take over responsibility for the entire administration of the Island. I think that, in view of that, it cannot be held that this is likely to be a precedent which will embarrass us in the future in the case of other Dominions.
But, quite apart even from the Dominions, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that this might be a dangerous precedent with regard to municipal authorities in this country who got into financial trouble and who imagined that, because we came to the aid of Newfoundland, they would have a still greater claim on us for aid. Again I would remind my right hon. and gallant Friend of the terms of this Bill, and similar terms in their case would be that we should take over responsibility for local government in the area of such a municipal authority. I believe that when hon. Members are reminded of that fact, they will see how very small indeed is the danger of this becoming a precedent embarrassing to us in either of those cases.
I was asked one or two questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who spoke about the tragic and distressing conditions under which fishermen and cultivators in Newfoundland have been living for a long time past, and who asked whether we did not, at the Dominions Office, know about those conditions and whether it was not our business long ago to make suggestions, or give advice, or interfere in some way in order to try to improve those conditions. He asked further whether we knew about the financial straits into which the Dominion was getting, whether we knew about all these economic and financial causes which were leading up to this crisis, and, if so, why we did not intervene with advice, or with assistance, or at any rate why we did not take some positive action to indicate to the Government of Newfoundland that we were displeased and that we thought things ought to be run in some different way.
The answer to that is the answer which has been given before, and it might not be a desirable or satisfactory answer to my hon. Friend, but at any rate it is an answer based on fact, from which we cannot get away. The fact is that Newfoundland even at this moment is still a Dominion and that it is no business of the Dominions Office or of anyone in Downing Street to interfere with the internal affairs of any Dominion, whether Newfoundland or one of the other Dominions, unless requested to do so by the Government of that Dominion. When my hon. Friend quotes the precedent of, I think, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain giving some very cogent advice to Newfoundland in 1898, or 1901, or about then, he quotes a case which illustrates the point, because Mr. Chamberlain was only able to offer that advice after an appeal had been made to him by the authorities in Newfoundland for his views and advice upon a question. Therefore, we were not able to offer any advice or to interfere in any way at all, until—

Mr. G. HALL: I think it was the Governor who at that time reported what was likely to happen if an agreement was entered into. It was not a question of the Government of Newfoundland asking for advice, but a report from the Governor as to conditions which were likely to arise.

Mr. Mac DONALD: Even so, the position of the Governor has changed a good deal since 1898, and it was in fact in this case absolutely impossible, because of the status of Newfoundland, for the Dominions Office or the Government here to offer advice or to interfere in any way until they were invited to give advice or assistance by the Newfoundland Government. My hon. Friend will remember that as soon as the late Government of Newfoundland did appeal to us in 1931, we sent out a financial adviser and did our very best to get conditions in the island on to an even keel again, without having to resort to the drastic proposals which we are now putting through in this legislation. As I say, I believe that really there is a great deal more agreement in all parts of the House than the occasionally violent Debates would have indicated, because everyone agrees that the very serious situation in Newfoundland is one that cannot possibly be left where it is.
This Bill proposes to deal with the situation in two stages. We are disagreed upon the first stage and agreed upon the second stage. The first stage is to come immediately to the rescue of the present financial situation to enable the Newfoundland Government to avoid default. There is disagreement between the two sides of the House on that point, and hon. Members on that side have again to-day pressed their view that default would have been no bad thing. I am not going to bore the House by repeating all the arguments against that point of view. All that I will repeat is that we believe default would have been serious, and it would have been serious for the people whom we are most anxious to help, namely, the humble fishermen and the cultivators of the land. It must be quite evident that if confidence is shaken in a country which is dependent very largely upon imports for providing the population with the necessities of life, that population will run a grave risk of having to do without some of those necessities. I do not want to pursue that argument, for it has been represented again and again in the course of these Debates.
The second stage in our policy for coming to the aid of Newfoundland and rectifying the present very serious situation is the stage of establishing a new
form of government which shall be able to pursue a policy of political training and economic development to enable the island as quickly as possible to stand on its own feet again. There, I believe, we are entirely agreed at any rate in principle. Hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway have often said that they would be behind the Government in a policy of directly helping the fishermen and agriculturists. That, however, is the most important part of this policy, and the Government have agree that the first step to avoiding default would not be justified at all unless we meant to go on and initiate that economic development and those other constructive changes which will restore the island to a position of prosperity and bring improvement into the lives of the general people. My hon. Friend said there was nothing in this Bill which would help the ordinary population of the island. He asked, for instance, why the Government did not make it a condition of coming to the rescue of the budget of Newfoundland that the truck system should be modified or abolished straightaway. As a matter of fact, we are as good as doing that. We are not only making the condition that steps should be taken to reform or abolish the truck system; we are making the condition that we should take over the responsibility for the whole administration, including the department which would have to deal with this question of doing business by credit.
It is certainly one of the intentions of the Government that the truck system should be abolished as soon as possible. I would remind my hon. Friend that the truck system, whatever we may think about it, and however strongly we may feel about it, cannot be abolished overnight. It is going to be a gradual process. We do not want to raise any false hopes about it, because the commission itself in its report pointed out:
The habit is now so deeply engrained, both' among the merchants and among the fishermen, that the alteration can only be effected gradually.
That that policy should be effected is one of the prime intentions of the Government in initiating this scheme. My hon. Friend said again that there is nothing in this Bill which will help the fishermen and agriculturists. Again I disagree with him. Clause 5 of the Bill enables the Government of Newfoundland to apply to
the Colonial Development Advisory Committee for loans or grants to enable that Government to carry out development work in the island, and those works, whether they are to do with the fisheries or with agriculture, or with the starting of an industry for the raising of fur-bearing animals, or whatever they may be, will be undertaken with the main object of improving the chances of employment and the livelihood of the ordinary common Newfoundlander. It is laid down in this Bill that that shall be one of the purposes of the policy which we are initiating.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about the land for the people?

Mr. MacDONALD: I will deal with the more specific questions which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me before I sit down. I would repeat that the policy of development is the prime purpose of the Government in putting through this complicated and ambitious scheme for coming to the aid of Newfoundland economically and politically. Some questions were asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as to the type of commissioner whom we are going to send out. He wanted to know how they were to be chosen. Again I do not want to repeat what has been said very often in the Debate, but we recognise that the commissioners must have at least two great qualifications. One is that they must have great administrative ability because of this work of development, which is an essential part of the scheme. Another is that they must be able to handle what is an exceedingly difficult political situation. They must, therefore, have some political experience, and be able to handle a rather difficult political state of affairs. All I can say at this moment is that we are searching through every list that we can think of which is appropriate in order to try to find men who will fulfil those qualifications.
My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who was studiously polite to the Dominions Office when he said in the Debate the other day he did not mind this work coming under that Department, stated that he did not feel the Dominions Office had in their service men with that experience which is necessary to tackle the Newfoundland problems, and he sug-
gested that the Colonial Office had in their service men with a much more appropriate experience. We are searching through the Colonial Office service. We are also searching through the India service, and through all those services which are appropriate in order to try to find the very best men that we can. It may be that in those services we shall not be able to find three men who can really do the job. We might not find in those services, for instance, the men with the right political qualifications. Therefore, we are searching outside those services as well, and we shall be extremely grateful to any hon. Members who have suggestions to make if they will send them in, I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will consider them on their merits. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton said that he would not be willing to go. Perhaps he would like one of his lieutenants to go. Suppose the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) were to go, the House would miss him very much during the next all-night sitting, but I feel sure that he would at least come back and defend the Government oh the next occasion when this matter was discussed.

Mr. WALLHEAD: There is a suggestion that you might send Lord Trenchard.

Mr. MacDONALD: If my hon. Friend would like to send in that name, my right hon. Friend will consider it. The question of the salaries to be paid to the Commissioners has been raised. As regards the figure of the salaries, it is impossible to say anything at the present moment. The consideration of the whole question of the type of men whom we are able to get has not gone far enough to enable a specific statement to be made, but a statement in regard to it will be made at the earliest possible moment. My hon. Friend asked whether the salaries of the three United Kingdom Commissioners would come from moneys voted by this House. They will, and they will appear on the Dominions service vote. That cost is included in the estimate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave when he said that the whole cost might be from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 between now and the end of 1936. My hon. Friend asked whether it was correct that the salaries of the Newfoundland Commissioners would not come out of
money voted by this House. That is so. These salaries will be paid out of the revenue of Newfoundland itself
One or two questions were asked as to the work which the commissioners will undertake. I was asked whether they would have any specific instructions with regard to the work of the Civil Service. One of the things that stands out all through the report of the Royal Commission is that the unfortunate system which prevails in recruiting the Civil Service in the Island is one of the causes of the breakdown of government there. It will be one of the first questions which the new Government will consider, and any suggestions that they have to make about it will receive our immediate attention. My hon. Friend asked about agricultural development, and whether the commission would have any specific instructions regarding that question. Again, the commission Government will go out in order to develop as quickly as possible the resources of the Island, and one of their first duties will be to inquire into the possibility of improvng and developing agriculture.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme wanted to know about the taxation of land values in Newfoundland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt studied the report, and he will recognise that some very powerful arguments were put forward in it in favour of that form of taxation. That is a matter for the new Government to consider, and it is impossible for us to prejudge the issue. We have to leave that to the Governor and the commissioners, and I have no doubt that the sections of the report dealing with it will not completely escape their notice. With regard to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's specific question as to whether we were going to put on to the commission anybody who is interested in land development companies, so that vested interests might be entrenched in the Government, the answer is that we shall not put in as a commissioner anyone who is connected with land development companies in Newfoundland.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That applies to the three appointed there as well, I suppose?

Mr. MacDONALD: That applies to all the six commissioners who will aid the Governor. Finally, my right hon. and gallant Friend showed his gallantry by returning to the charge and endeavouring to find out whether we were going to have a Newfoundland Member in this House. I am not going to get out of order by dealing with that question. Apart from that question, he also asked whether there was any idea of a Legislative Assembly or some shadow of democratic government being established in Newfoundland.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No. I did not.

Mr. MacDONALD: Then I misunderstood my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I am not quite certain what was the point of his further remarks. He wanted to know whether we were going to continue the dictatorship indefinitely.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The only way of ending a dictatorship is to have their representatives at Westminster, in the same way as with Scotland or Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. MacDONALD: I would only say that if the Government we are establishing under this Bill is a dictatorship, it is not going to be permanent, and the Bill itself makes it quite clear that it is not to be permanent. It is a temporary arrangement, and, as a matter of fact, in Clause 1 (2) there is not only a provision for revoking the Letters Patent which are to establish this new form of Government, but there is a provision for amending those Letters Patent, and therefore there is open the possibility of amending this form of Government short of revoking the Letters Patent and restoring self-government to the Island.

Mr. D. MASON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point about the advances being a first charge?

Mr. MacDONALD: My hon. Friend asked a question about the advances being a first charge, and perhaps I may be permitted to read the paragraph, which has been very carefully prepared, because I want to give a perfectly watertight answer. The service of the guaranteed stock and any advances by the United Kingdom Government to Newfoundland—other than free grants—or payments under the guarantee, will rank as a prior charge on Newfoundland after the service of the existing trustee securities, and
it would be impossible for a future Newfoundland Government, while any of this stock or any debt to this country remains, to give the banks or any other lender a charge in front of these obligations.
Finally, I maintain that this extremely difficult and delicate problem of a Dominion which has asked that self-government might be taken away from it for a temporary period is a problem worthy of handling by a people of great Imperial traditions like ourselves. But it is not only the people of this island who are going to be concerned with the policy to be pursued and the work to be done. This is to be an act of partnership, an act of co-operation between the people of Newfoundland and the people of this country. There are to be associated with our three

commissioners, three commissioners appointed from Newfoundland's population, and a very heavy responsibility will fall upon those Newfoundland commissioners. But, above all, this policy cannot succeed without co-operation on the part of the whole population of Newfoundland. That population is possessed of many fine qualities, which have been referred to in this House, and we hope and pray that those great qualities will now be devoted to the service of the Island of Newfoundland, because without their devotion in that cause we shall not be able to pull the Island through the difficult period ahead. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 52.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cross, R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Aske, Sir Robert William
Crossley, A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dickie, John P.
Hornby, Frank


Atholl, Duchess of
Donner, P. W.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert, S.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Drewe, Cedric
Horobin, Ian M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Horsbrugh, Florence


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duggan, Hubert John
Howard, Tom Forrest


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elmley, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Blindell, James
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Ker, J. Campbell


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Flelden, Edward Brockiehurst
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Flint, Abraham John
Knight, Holford


Broadbent, Colonel John
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Law, Sir Alfred


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fox, Sir Gilford
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Buchan, John
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Ganzonl, Sir John
Levy, Thomas


Burnett, John George
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lewis, Oswald


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Liddall, Walter S.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Giuckstein, Louis Halle
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Liewellin, Major John J.


Carver, Major William H.
Goff, Sir Park
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goldie, Noel B.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Graves, Marjorle
Lookwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grigg, Sir Edward
Mabane, William


Clarke, Frank
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
MacDonald, Maicolm (Bassetlaw)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Colville, Lieut-Colonel J.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hanbury, Cecil
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Cooper, A. Duff
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mailaileu, Edward Lanceiot


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spens, William Patrick


Martin, Thomas B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rathbone, Eleanor
Strauss, Edward A.


Meller, Sir Richard James
Ray, Sir William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)
Rea, Walter Russell
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Milne, Charles
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chlsw'k)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sutcilffe, Harold


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mitcheson, G. G.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Taylor, Vice Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Remer, John R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Morgan, Robert H.
Rickards, George William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Robinson, John Roland
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Morrison, William Shephard
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Train, John


Munro, Patrick
Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nail, Sir Joseph
Runge, Norah Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Nunn, William
Salt, Edward W.
Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir John S.


O'Connor, Terence James
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Weymouth, Viscount


Palmer, Francis Noel
Scone, Lord
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Patrick, Coiln M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Pearson, William G.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Percy, Lord Eustace
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn.Sir A. (C'thness)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Skeiton, Archibald Noel
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Petherick, M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)



Potter, John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Safter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentin, L.
Wilmot, John


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I must ask the indulgence of the House while I explain the matter in a little detail. The House will recollect that on previous occasions the importance of the dyestuffs industry has been made absolutely clear. There are several special reasons why a flourishing and successful dyestuffs industry is of particular importance to the United Kingdom. In the first place, it is a very valuable industry for purposes of organic chemistry. It is most important that
organic chemistry should continue to be studied in its application to industry; and the dyestuffs industry is one of the branches where organic chemistry can best be studied in industrial practice. It is a very important industry for purposes of research, and research means not merely inquiring as to the possibility of new substances and the possibility of improving those substances which are already used, but it also means keeping constantly in touch with users' requirements. I shall show to the House in a few moments that the control of foreign dyestuffs by importation only under licence peculiarly facilitates the task of the research chemist in knowing exactly what users require. The dystuffs industry is also very important because of our great coal reserves and the immensity of the mining industry of this country. The close association of dyestuffs with the distillation of coal is, of course, well known. The very large number of dyestuffs which are coal-tar products is known to the House. Naturally, having such large supplies of raw material, of coal, it is of particular interest to this country that an industry which is allied to the user of those products should be flourishing. Then, of course, the dyestuffs industry provides the raw material for another great branch of our trade: the textile industry. Lastly, but not least, a dyestuffs industry is essential for the purpose of national defence.
The House will probably be interested to see the very remarkable extent to which the dyestuffs industry has advanced since pre-War days. I am not going to pretend that the whole of the improvement is due to the passage of the Dyestuffs Regulation Act, 1920, but I am going to show the facts and the figures, and leave the House to draw their own deduction as to whether the improvement flows from the policy, or whether it flows from the importance of the events concerned. In 1913, the output of synthetic dyestuffs in this country was a little over 9,000,000 lbs.; in 1922, it had risen to over 23,000,000 lbs.; in 1929, due perhaps to the protection afforded by the Act, it was about 58,000,000 lbs. That is a very remarkable expansion indeed, and it is not one isolated fact. Not only has that expansion of the weight of synthetie dyestuffs been so surprising, but in 1913 only 22 per cent. of our consumption of
synthetics was made in this country; in 1922, the percentage had risen to 79, and from 1928 onwards the percentage had increased until it is now in the neighbourhood of 91 per cent. Ninety-one per cent. of the synthetic dyestuffs used in this country is made here.
Side by side with any great expansion of the home industry, we naturally look to see whether there has been any checking of foreign imports. We find, exactly as we should expect, that the imports of synthetic dyestuffs have fallen from 41,000,000 lbs. in 1913 to a little over 4,000,000 lbs. in 1932. A Very large number of special dyestuffs, however—something like 2,000—are still imported in small quantities, and I should like anybody who wishes to oppose this Measure to realise that, although the British industry is still able to supply the consumers requirements for a great number of dyes in bulk, there are something like 2,000 which are imported in small quantities in varieties which the British industry is insufficient to make for consumers here. Intermediate products, something between the coal tar products and the finished dyestuffs, have made an equally singularly successful progress. In 1913, practically no intermediaries were made in this country at all. In 1932, we imported only 1 per cent. of our total output of dyestuffs. Those are very remarkable figures.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Did the hon. Gentleman say that we imported 1 per cent. of our intermediaries?

Dr. BURGIN: No; let us have the words exactly. No intermediates were made in this country at all in 1913, but in 1932 our imported intermediates, which were just over 500,000 lbs. in weight, represented only 1 per cent. of our total output of dyestuffs.
I was emphasising just now that a successful dyestuffs industry played a very important part in the development of research. I should like to tell the House that a very notable research achieved in this country has been the discovery of a range of dyestuffs in the dyeing of artificial silk, a group of colours which originated in Great Britain and in the development of which the British industry has played a leading part throughout. The House will appreciate that side by side with a successful industry like
the dyestuffs comes the development of specialised plant for the manufacture and use of those dyestuffs. We find, therefore, a very important development in the chemical engineering industry. The chemical plant for dyemaking, not previously obtainable in this country is now being made on a large scale, and British chemical plant manufacturers are able to supply the best and latest types of plant required, in the design of which the latest scientific principles are embodied and the workmanship of which is found, as we should expect, to be of the highest quality.
I can understand the House saying, "It is all very well for you to say that smaller quantities are coming in; you show that the British industry has expanded; you give some gratifying figures as to the development of that industry. Now tell us about the price. How far has any of this been done at the expense of the consumer? You yourself say that the textile industries have dyes as their raw materials. It would be harsh, when textiles are so hard-hit in their export trade, to do anything which might increase the cost of the dye; even if it were quite small, any incidence would be of importance." Very well; let us have a look at the prices. Before the War the average price of dyestuffs, taking into consideration the quantities sold, was something like 1s. a lb. Running a line through all the different classes of dyestuffs, the price averaged out at something like 1s. a 1b. In the year 1920, owing to War prices, to the astonishing demand that had been made for dyestuffs and to the general upheaval of British industry, the price had risen as high as 4s. 4d. a lb. By 1928, owing to the increased manufacture, that price of 4s. 4d., the post-War figure, had been brought down to 1s. 6½ d. a lb., or only about one and a-half times the pre-War price. The composition of the total sales in 1928 was very different from that prior to the War, because it included the vat dyestuffs which, apart from indigo, were not made in this country before the War. Since 1928 further reductions in dyestuffs have been made, but we can treat the level of prices as approximately 1s. 6½ d. a lb.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman referring now to dyes used for the textile industry, or to dyes spread over the whole country?

Dr. BURGIN: I am trying to compare like with like. I am pointing out that the general range taken over all dyestuffs before the War was 1s. I am taking it that the general range now is 1s. 6½ d. I shall be quite happy to discuss with the hon. and gallant Member any specified dyestuffs if he will be good enough, a little later on, to give me both the English and the Latin names in order that I may check them. The range is 1s. to 1s. 6½ d. I should like, in case anybody thinks that one-and-a-half times the pre-War price is an excessive price, to tell the House that I have looked into comparative figures in other countries. I find that in Germany, for instance, the price in 1913 was a little over 10d. a lb.; in 1931, it was 1s. 9d.; in 1932, it was 2s. 0½ d., or roughly 2.3 times as much as it was in 1913. So that, whatever may be the comparison between our own pre-War and 1932 prices in England, 150 per cent. of pre-War compares very favourably with Germany, the great continental home of dyestuffs, which has over 200 per cent. increase in its export prices.
That, I think, will suffice as a general outline review of the dyestuffs industry and the way in which it has prepared for development. We now come to the provisions of the Measure which I have to recommend to the House. The object of the Bill is to place on a permanent basis the prohibition of importation into the United Kingdom of dyestuffs and intermediary products, a prohibition which has been enforced since 15th January, 1921. The idea of the Act in 1920 was that it should be for a limited period of time—10 years. There have been three successive Expiring Laws Continuance Acts, and in order to give time for the preparation of the present Bill it was further prolonged by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of this year. The House will naturally require some justification for the policy of rendering permanent an Act which, when it was brought into force, was admittedly temporary in view.
I must quite frankly meet that position and explain it to the House. Hon. Members will be familiar with the arguments used by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in making their recommendations in September of this year. I hope I am not asking too much in saying that hon. and right hon. Members will be familiar, with the arguments in that White Paper,
because the whole case is there set out very clearly. There are, however, two points which commend themselves to me very much. The first is that in 1920 anything in the nature of a limitation or prohibition or import restriction was an exception in a Free Trade world. Conditions have greatly changed since then, and there is no longer any reason for hesitating to put on a restriction where the argument for its imposition is proved. It is no longer an exception, and if a case can be made out on the merits of this particular industry, that industry ought not to be denied the advantages which other industries can acquire.
The greater argument, and one to which I hope some observations will be addressed in the course of this Debate, is: On the Continent of Europe, in the vast chemical establishments which have made dyestuffs a peculiar feature of their development, there is productive capacity more than sufficient for the requirements of the whole world. What is the argument as to dealing with the industries of your own country, when you are confronted with the possibility of there being unloaded into your land surplus productive capacity from units which are more than sufficient to supply the entire world? I have never heard the answer to that question, and I shall be very glad if some hon. Member will address his mind to it. We have in this country a number of small dyestuff makers who render invaluable service to the consumers. They make specialities, specialised dyestuffs and specialised colours which are not procurable elsewhere in this country. Those small units concentrate upon making some particular refinement which is wanted by some group of consumers. It is quite clear that if you lower your tariff walls, and expose your country to the importation of the surplus capacity from the continent of Europe, the first to go to the wall will be those small makers, who are incapable of resistance or of dealing with great trusts and the vast organisations.
The Import Duties Advisory Committee say that, in their judgment, the measure of Protection which can be afforded by import duties is quite different in the dyestuffs industry from that of other industries which have come under their control. They say that in their view there must be prohibition, and that there must
be importation merely by licence. That licence will only be granted when it is shown that the home country cannot produce the article required. Be it noted that nobody suffers, because if it is shown that this country cannot make the article, and that it is necessary to apply for and obtain a licence, it follows automatically that no import duty is payable. The article comes in free, but under supervision and under some sort of control. The immediate effect of broadcasting the consumers' requirements of this particular dyestuff is to put every British organic chemist on his mettle to endeavour to produce something of that kind in the future. What objection can seriously be raised to a measure of that kind? I commend it to the good sense of the House. I think it well to call special attention to the necessity of continuing that import prohibition permanently, for dyestuffs which cannot be made here.
Under the Act of 1920 there were two Committees. There was the Advisory Committee. You cannot have an Act of Parliament giving a wide power of prohibition and exclusion without a trade organisation being set up to assist the Government in the working of the Act. the Advisory Licensing Committee has rendered great service in keeping the Government Departments in touch with the industry and its requirements. There has also been the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee for the purpose of advising the Board of Trade. Hon. Members will have seen the reports which have been issued from time to time by these committees. Unfortunately, as in so many industries, there was no unanimity of opinion or of recommendation. In 1932, in regard to matters of considerable importance, the committees were divided in their recommendations. The majority required a continuation of the three years, while the minority thought that there was no necessity for any further extension.
In the face of that conflicting advice, when it fell to my lot to propose that the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of 1932 should include in its Schedule the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, I had to consult as to what was the right thing to do when conflicting advice had been tendered to the Government from within the industry itself. Recourse was had to a means which satisfied the
House, and that was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, in the name of the Treasury, invite the Import Duties Advisory Committee to report upon the whole matter. On 7th December last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited that Advisory Committee to consider the position. The Committee worked with commendable speed, having regard to the immense importance and the variety of matters brought before them connected with the dyestuffs industry. It cannot be said that to receive instructions on 7th December and to report in July is an undue length of time. Hon. and right hon. Members will agree, I think, that this report is an exemplary piece of work, and it is now before the House. In accordance with the Recommendations of that report, a Bill has been prepared, the Second Reading of which we are now considering.
The changes introduced by the Bill are almost entirely consequent upon that report. I shall, as briefly as I can, go through the Clauses and tell the House which small portions of the Bill originate from the Board of Trade, and not from the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The House may know in advance that those portions are quite slight; they are merely administrative matters for the working of the Act, based on departmental experience. A very important provision of the Bill is that which deals with the possibility of complaints by consumers, and it contains reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee expressly to investigate any case in which there may have been difficulty in procuring supplies.
Having reviewed the position since the Dyestuffs Act, 1920, let me come to the terms of the Measure before the House. The Bill is one of six Clauses, one of which relates to the printing of it, and another to the short Title, so that we have only to deal with four Clauses, and I can compress my observations into a very small compass. The first Clause is the one which makes the policy a permanent one. As in all good drafting, the Clause is based upon an exactly similar precedent. The Summer Time Act was a temporary Act which was made permanent. The language used in that Act has been followed in this. The
House may assume that the words in Clause 1 are apt to make an Act which is temporary in character permanent in duration. We then come to Clause 2 which is the definition Clause, and is vitally important.
What are the mam recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee? How do we propose to carry them out? There are three recommendations: That dyestuffs properly so-called should only be imported under licence; that dyestuffs which are not primarily used in dyeing should be dealt with by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and that intermediates should also only be allowed in under licence. Let us see whether the words that have been selected and which have all been worked out by experts, referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and considered are apt for the purpose for which they are used. The House will probably give the greatest consideration to the exceptions, that is to say, to the goods which are not included in the prohibition.
Broadly speaking, there is a whole series of colours, printing inks, and matters of that kind, which are not properly used in dyeing. I will deal with their definition in a moment. The definition Clause, as will be seen, is in three parts: Synthetic organic dyestuffs, which are built up artificially in laboratories and factories from simpler chemical conv pounds, as distinct from dyestuffs from natural sources. Some of those synthetics have almost entirely displaced the corresponding natural ones. Artificial indigo, for instance, has almost entirely replaced the natural indigo. Most of those synthetics have no natural corresponding products. Besides synthetic organic dyestuffs there are pigment dyestuffs, whether soluble or insoluble. Pigment dyestuffs are inserted to avoid any question as to whether they are dyestuffs or not. A pigment in the sense of a colour might be thought not to be a dyestuff, but these are dyestuffs because they are the product of a dyestuff manufacturer. That is in accordance with the view of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, who have agreed to this definition.
The textile and dyeing trades will know the necessity for the words "soluble or insoluble." There are many insoluble dyestuffs which are capable of
being used as pigments, but are not widely used for that purpose. The most important are vat dyestuffs, like indigo, all being insoluble in water. These vat dyestuffs are largely used for dyeing goods in fast colours, but they are not used by themselves. They are transformed, in the first instance, by a very simple chemical reaction into leuco-com-pounds which are soluble in water. These are used for dyeing in water and the leuco-compounds, upon coming into contact with the air, turned into the original compounds, and so the fabric is dyed to the required colour. In consequence, a vat dyestuff is not actually used for dyeing but as a base from which the leuco-compound is derived. Therefore, it is necessary to put in these words, "whether soluble or insoluble."
The second paragraph deals with compounds, preparations and articles. The exception comes at the end. Those words are necessary, because it is not only as leuco-compounds but as various forms of paste and other substances, that dyestuffs are brought to the consumer for use. Look at the excepted classes:
Except any such compounds, preparations and articles as are not suitable for use in dyeing.
These are chiefly coloured lakes—loose compounds of dyestuffs with bases such as hydrate of alumina—used for making paints and printing inks; artists' colours; printing, drawing, hectograph, lithograph and similar inks, coloured chalks, typewriter ribbons, carbon papers, paints, enamels, copying ink pencils and articles of that kind. Although there is a dyestuff in their makeup, the object of the dyestuff is not for dyeing, and so these words are inserted in order to exclude from the prohibition and the licence these important articles, which are not in substance connected with dyeing at all—for instance, the range of colours used in enamels for motor car bodies, barium salts of synthetic dyestuffs, and articles of that kind.
A feature common to all the excluded compounds is that they are made from the finished dyestuff. The dyestuff is combined with, or mixed with, or applied to, some other material, making a compound, preparation or article essentially different from the original dyestuff, and not suitable for use in dyeing. The words "not suitable for use in dyeing" are a
characteristic of all the goods excluded from the prohibition, and are essential in order to define them and to distinguish them from preparations of dyestuffs which are used in dyeing. Sub-section (3) deals with intermediate products used in the manufacture of dyestuffs, that is to say, all the range between coal tar, benzol, toluol and naphthalene and the finished dyestuff itself. All these coal-tar products are manufactured into something more complex—an intermediate product; and that intermediate product in turn is transformed into the finished dyestuff. The intermediate products are in some cases equally adaptable to the manufacture of explosives. Their manufacture is an integral part of any self-contained dyestuff industry.
So much for definition. I come now to Clause 3, the Clause setting up a committee. The old committee is continued, but its numbers are added to and its constitution is modified so that it will consist of members of the Licensing Committee with the addition of representatives of the textile and heavy chemical industries, of chemical science and of Departments of State, the representatives of chemical science being nominated by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Eesearch. Sub-section (7) of the Clause ensures that the chairman of the Licensing Committee does not vacate the chair when the committee is increased, thereby ensuring continuity, even though the committee is extended, by keeping the same chairman. Sub-section (9) provided for the possibility of changes in the personnel of the committee. Subsections (7) and (9) have nothing to do with the Import Duties Advisory Committee; they are insertions made on the initiative of the Board of Trade, to facilitate the working of the Act; and, in order that the House may not think we are legislating in a terra incognita, I may say that the latter of these provisions is based upon the procedure adopted in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, which has worked, through the Board of Trade, perfectly satisfactorily, and in which exactly this procedure has been adopted.
Clause 4, which is substantially the last Clause of the Bill for the purposes of any real discussion, is a Clause which has no counterpart in the Act of 1920. It is introduced to deal with consumers' complaints. The House will remember that under the Import Duties Act, 1932, Sec-
tion 2, the committee may, when they like, call upon people to furnish returns and information. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have wide powers of investigation of the structure of an industry, and so it is thought that we could not do better, in order to provide a safeguard for the consumer, than incorporate the procedure of reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We think that this is the best method of carrying out the recommendation in paragraph 20 of the report of the committee, and to avoid placing the industry under the necessity of making frequent appeals. The committee say that, in their opinion, some provision ought to be made for complaints by a responsible body of consumers, and that, if requested, they would be prepared to undertake this task. They go on to refer to the questions which may become the subject of appeal and so on. Accordingly, we make provision here for reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and by Subsection (2) of the Clause we incorporate the powers contained in the other Act. Clause 5 merely enables the Bill to be reprinted in a particular way, and Clause 6 relates to the Title.
The only topic remaining on which I ought to say a word is the question of the International Cartel. "The International Cartel" sounds a frightening title, but, when one comes to look at the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, one finds very little to be frightened of. Here is a great international organisation, a very sensible pooling of markets by the interests concerned, and, provided the consumer does not suffer, an admirable arrangement. The prices were increased some 22½ per cent. at the time when the Cartel came into operation. The actual Cartel agreement, which, hitherto, only parties to it could see, has been tabled before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, who had an opportunity of considering it; and the Committee give it as their considered opinion that there is nothing in the Cartel or in its working which gives an undue advantage to the manufacturer. There is, moreover, the additional fact that no one at present is expressing dissatisfaction with the prices charged under it. The evidence given before the Import Duties Advisory Committee was that colour users were not
complaining. In paragraph 9 on page 5 of the report they state:
As regards the present, it has been frankly stated that the users have no serious complaint as to the prices charged by the dyestuffs industry in comparison with the prices charged by continental makers.
Therefore, at present, any apprehension is merely a fear, and it is suggested that the Import Duties. Advisory Committee is quite adequate for dealing with the matter should that apprehension become any more acute. The structure of the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee is, I think, made clear by what I have said. We are proposing, by giving legislative effect to those recommendations, to carry out the Import Duties Advisory Committee's ideas, and the main recommendations, apart from the Act being made permanent, are, as the House will see, that there should be imported under licence dyestuffs proper, that other colours should be dea't with entirely by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and that intermediates should come in under licence, but not on the Free List, subject to the ad valorem duty. Obviously this Bill has been prepared and printed, and is brought before the House, before the House has been told of any further recommendations by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I am now in a posi-to announce to the House the nature of the Import Duties Advisory Committee's further recommendations.
The Treasury will issue on Monday Orders bringing into effect the tariff changes recommended by the committee. Those changes will come into force on the 27th December, and will consist of the following:
The removal of dyestuffs to the Free List.
The imposition of additional duties, making the duty 20 per cent. in all, on pigments which are synthetic organic colours or colouring matters.
Most or all of the other materials from which the prohibition is now being removed are already subject to additional duties, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act and other Acts.
The Board of Trade are giving notice that they are issuing an open general licence, with effect from the 27th December, for the importation of compounds, preparations and articles not suitable for use in dyeing, manufactured from syn-
thetic organic dyestuffs. These are the colours and colouring matters which the committee recommended should not be subject to prohibition. The joint committee of makers and users to consider questions relating to prices and supplies has not yet been set up, but that committee will be set up early in the New Year. It will be, of course, a committee set up by the trade, and not by the Board of Trade.
That is the end of the announcement. I have only to tell the House that the Colour Users' Association have passed a resolution in which, while not agreeing to the necessity of this Bill, they have promised to use every endeavour to assist in the smooth working of the Act. I am sorry to have detained the House for so long, but I thought that this review was probably necessary.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
Obviously, the first thing I must do is to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his very clear statement and the excellent outline he has given of this Bill. Having said that much, I think I will finish congratulating him. The next thing that emerges from what the hon. Gentleman has said is clear—that, whenever this Government wants to fasten Protection on the country, it always employs a Liberal Minister to do it. We have that spectacle here to-night. When the hon. Gentleman rose to move the Bill, there were on the bench four Liberal and two Conservative Ministers. The four Liberal Ministers have departed, and there is now just one Conservative Member left supporting the hon. Gentleman.
I should like to make one or two comments on the Measure. Naturally, I do not profess to know as much about this subject as the hon. Gentleman does, but I want to criticise some of the arguments he has put forward. He said, and I do not think there is any qu'arrel on this score, that a flourishing dyestuffs industry is essential to this country; but I thought that he dwelt unduly on the point that the industry was necessary for research purposes. He also dwelt at length upon the necessity of connecting this problem with coal.
While coal, naturally, comes into the picture in relation to dyestuffs, I thought the hon. Gentleman was going out of his way to capture the Members for mining divisions in this House to agree with the tariff policy of the Government. That is an old dodge, but I do not think it will work on this occasion, because I should imagine that only a few colliers would be able in 12 months to produce all the coal that is required for research purposes. He said, too, that it was essential that the Government should get into touch with the colour users in this connection, but I shall be surprised if we do not hear a protest this evening from a member connected with the Colour Users' Association. I thought too that he rather tried to escape touching the real problem in connection with the Bill, and that is the difficulties confronting the colour user of dyes. He was very gentle, also, when he talked about national defence. He knows quite well that there is a great deal of value in dyestuffs for explosive purposes; and, if he had told us exactly what is in the mind of the Government, he would have said that the dyestuffs industry is being protected very largely for the purposes of war and national defence. That is the sum and substance of the Government's policy.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the dyestuffs cartel, and it rather amazed me to hear a Liberal Minister informing the House that a cartel is a very sensible arrangement unless the consumer suffers. I always thought the Liberal doctrine was that the consumer suffers anyhow under any cartel, but I suppose when a Liberal Minister joins a Tory Government he can argue almost anything about Free Trade and Protection. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is any agreement between producers as to the price to be charged for exporting dyestuffs from the countries where the cartel operates? For illustration, the cartel includes, I understand, a firm called I.G. in Germany and also Imperial Chemical Industries.

Dr. BURGIN: Quite right.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman inform us whether Imperial Chemical Industries has any arrangement with the German part of the same firm to deter-
mine the price of dyes exported from Germany to this country? It would be very interesting to know, too, the value of the export of dyes from this country. Then, is there any arrangement within the cartel to preclude the export of dyestuffs from this country to any other country in the world, particularly into some of the Scandinavian countries? The hon. Gentleman used the argument of the average price. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Salford West (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) is very conversant with this problem, and I was very pleased that he objected when he did. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the average annual price of dyestuffs, it is just like including rent and the cost of meat, vegetables and clothes and saying, "This is the average price of the whole lot," as if rent, food and clothing, and all these things were to be compared with each other for the purpose of the average price. Surely, that was a little too much for his own intellectual attainments.
I now come to what I think is the most important point of all in the opposition to this Measure. It is a. Bill to make permanent the provisions of the Act of 1920. I think it was a little slip on the Minister's part when he used for comparative purposes the Summer Time Act, as if the dyestuffs industry fell into the same category as the seasons of the year. Then he used another argument with regard to procedure, that it falls into the same category as the Cinematograph Act. I should like to see a cinematograph picture of the way in which the Liberals who joined this Government and more recently crossed the Floor of the House, but more particularly those who stand up at that Government Bench and advocate tariffs. The people mostly interested in this problem, especially from the opposition point of view, are the colour users, and I think it is worth while putting their case before the House. They are mainly in Lancashire, and as a Lancashire Member I am entitled to put their case as well as my vocabulary will allow. Their first objection is that this policy, when it was enunciated in 1920, was regarded as a temporary provision. When the hon. Gentleman talked about permanency, he meant as long as this Government is in power. Some of us are hoping, in fact
we feel sure, that it is not going to he in power for many more years, and I should think this Bill can only be permanent up to the time they are defeated at the polls.
The colour users have, without doubt, been sacrificed for the purposes of national defence, and I think it can be proved that the mere establishment of a monopoly of the manufacturers of dyestuffs has put upon the colour users a burden that they should never have carried. I was very pleased to learn that the colour users have not even now agreed to the policy of the Government. That ought to be made quite clear. Their opposition remains unabated. They say. "We dislike this policy. We have been exploited by the manufacturers. We are compelled to bow to the inevitable because this type of Government is in power for the time being. When the time comes and a more sane Government rules over the land, we shall hope to get the policy altered." The colour users are still dependent upon foreign suppliers for certain of their needs, and the perpetuation of the present tariff policy is regarded as a serious handicap if the flow of novelties and special dyewares from abroad is obstructed in any way.
It is worth while quoting the views of the colour users, because they have passed very important resolutions against the policy of the Government, and one of their objections is a very powerful one. The textile industry of Lancashire has been in a very bad way for the last few years, and every farthing that is added to the cost of production makes it more difficult for that industry to compete in the markets of the world. I am assured that the increase in the price of dyes manufactured in this country in one year, from 1931 to 1932, meant an additional cost of £90,000 per annum to the firms associated with the Calico Printers Association alone, and, when the Government argue that the weight of the increased charges on dyes does not affect the cost of production very much, they must have been misguided in their calculations. On 12th November, 1931, the colour users passed the following resolution unanimously:
That the Colour Users Association consider that any tariff on dyeware, one of their important raw materials, would be prejudicial to their industry and, whilst not receding from their declaration regarding the Dyestuffs Act, they agree that in
present circumstances a continuation of that Act for a further 12 months would be preferable.
They have never admitted for a moment that the policy of the Government is anything but detrimental to their industry.
May I point out another fact. I have never been able to get statistics on this point, but I should imagine that the number of people employed by the colour users of Lancashire must be very much larger than the number employed in producing dyes. If 20,000 textile operatives are employed in using the product of the dyestuffs manufacturers and only 1,000 are employed in producing the dyes the Government ought to be wary in what they are doing in helping to destroy the industry in which the colour users operate. I do not know whether those figures can be proved, but I should not be a bit surprised if they gave a correct picture of the situation. Then the hon. Gentleman dwelt upon prices. May I tell him what the colour users themselves say about prices? This is a statement from one of their leaders:
In the British list of prices for dyestuffs, the increases range from 31 to 245 per cent.
When the hon. Gentleman was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Salford, he tried to get away with it by saying it was the average price that he was comparing for each year. But what is the use of comparing averages when you get within one list numbering hundreds of cases a difference as between 31 and 245 per cent.? It may be that one colour user may use only those dyes which have been increased in price by 245 per cent., and he may arrange his work for the use of that particular dye only. I cannot tell but it appears to be rather feasible to put it that way. Consequently, the average price is not a good formula for comparison. Then I think we are right in comparing the profits made by the firms who manufacture dyes with the terrible financial position of those who are using them. It is difficult to get up-to-date figures, but I am assured that in 1932 the Yorkshire Dye-wares Chemical Manufacturing Co. paid 15 per cent. on their ordinary shares, and during the last 10 years they have never paid less than 10 per cent. I am
not sure that it can be said that Yorkshire people make dividends merely by good management. I think they make them very largely because they develop a monopoly consequent upon being safeguarded by tariffs.
The hon. Gentleman based most of his arguments on the report of the Import Advisory Committee. I hope he will suffer a word of criticism about that Committee. I cannot understand the argument in paragraph 7 of their Report. They say:
The colour users have drawn our attention to the avowed intention in the Act that the expedient of import regulation should be applied only for a limited period of 10 years. In this connection, however, the time and the circumstances when the Dyestuffs Act was introduced should be borne in mind. The policy of import regulation constituted a notable exception to the general trade policy of the country. The situation has now undergone a radical change in that respect.
The uninitiated would conclude that the Imports Advisory Committee had come to this conclusion. They say in effect, "Never mind the arguments on behalf of the colour users of this country. The Government are a Tory Government. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of protection, and we must now bring this Bill into operation in order to harmonise this business with the general protective policy of the Government." That is the way they argue. I should have thought that if the Import Duties Advisory Committee are without prejudice or bias in connection with the trade policy of the country they ought to have avoided that point of view entirely. It should not matter to them whether there is a Tory or a Liberal or a Socialist Government in power. They ought to consider the matter as to whether the colour users are getting fair play and whether the producers are getting too much profit or not, and come down with a magisterial declaration in favour of the correct policy for all concerned. Those are some of the criticisms against the Bill. They are forcible criticisms, not of course because I have made them, against the Government. I am absolutely satisfied that, in spite of any bias which we may have either in favour of tariffs or against them, one thing is certain, namely, that no Government should do anything to make the problems of the Lancashire textile trade more difficult than they are at present.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: When I spoke on this subject last year on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill I made it clear that I wanted to deal with this question, not as a political question, but as an industrial question, and I want, if possible, to keep on those lines in what I say this evening. At that time I gave the history of the Act since 1920, and it is not necessary for me to repeat what I said on that occasion. The Parliamentary Secretary has run over that very fully this evening, and everybody in the House is aware of the history of this Bill. Unquestionably, when the Bill was introduced at that time, and, as a matter of fact, in the wording of the Bill itself, almost in the last Clause, we had supposed the period of time to be ten years. The last few words in the Clause were, "ten years and no longer." I am very sorry indeed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Hore) has left the House, because I think that he was President of the Board of Trade at the time, and he would have confirmed what is generally accepted, namely, that it was understood that the Bill should last for a period of ten years and then come to an end. Ever since the end of that period the dye users in this country have opposed the continuation of the Measure.
One reason why I object very seriously in the Bill is the fact that it makes the Act of 1920 a permanent Measure. I cannot understand why that provision has been put into the Bill. I remember that when we discussed this question in December of last year it was pointed out that there was a difference of view between different Members of the Development Committee. The majority of that Committee thought that the Act should be continued for five years, and the minority thought that it should be for three, but there was another minority. I do not want to misrepresent the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am not certain that he mentioned that the two members of the Colour Users Association who were represented on the Development Committee thought that the Act should come to an end and should not be continued at all. I do not see why the Government should have accepted the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and have rejected the recommendation of the Development Com-
mittee. That Committee has been in existence ever since the year 1921. They started their business when the Bill came into force. They have almost had 13 years' experience, and now the whole question is handed over to the Import Duties Advisory Committee who have given to it a sort of casual glance. I admit that unquestionably they have put their best into the question, but it has only been for a period of three months. The advice from the Import Duties Advisory Committee is accepted, and the Committee who have had the question in hand for a period of 13 years have been rejected. The Import Duties Advisory Committee say that they think that the whole question should be left open and that no specific date should be put into the Act.
I have only been in this House two years but my experience has proved to me how difficult it is to get an Act off the Statute Book once it has been put on. It would have been far easier if some extension, even of a year or two—although I am opposed to any extension at all—had been made. Then the whole question could have been discussed, with all the relevant facts brought up-to-date, and the House would have been permitted to have taken a further decision. I know that the industry itself does not like being continually at the mercy of an Act from year to year. There is a great deal to be said from that point of view, but surely it would have been better to have put a time limit into the Bill than to have fastened on to the industry a permanent Act of this description. The colour users, time and time again, have drawn attention to the fact that the Act was only for a period of 10 years.
I come to the question mentioned bv the Parliamentary Secretary and also by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) with regard to the statement-in paragraph 7 of the White Paper, where the Import Duties Advisory Committer point out that our fiscal system has undergone a radical change and that they see no reason why the dyestuffs industry should be excluded from the general policy. Is it part of our general policy to prohibit the importation of raw materials. There can be no justification for the statement in paragraph 7. I cannot think of any other industry which is subject to the same sort of thing in
the way it is proposed to subject the textile industry in the present Measure. I do not know of any other industry in the country where raw materials are prohibited. Surely that is not in line with the general policy of the Government. I cannot accept the contention of the Import Duties Advisory Committee with regard to paragraph 7. I ask the hon. Gentleman, if he is to reply, whether it is part of the policy of the Government in certain cases to prohibit the raw materials of any industry?
It cannot be denied that the colour users have by their co-operation helped to build up the dye-making industry. I pointed out last year the tremendous sacrifices which they have unanimously made. They have paid a tremendous amount of money extra for their raw materials since the Act of 1920 came into force. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that they have done everything possible to make for the smooth working of the Act, but they are now of the opinion that the makers do not need any prohibition Act. I believe that the British dye-making industry is so well established that it can do without prohibition, and that the users are right in this contention. The Parliamentary Secretary, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, proved this contention. He showed how the dye-making industry had developed, and I think we should all be willing to admit that it has made remarkable progress. My point is that progress has reached such a point of efficiency that it does not need prohibition. His own words, I think, prove that contention. You cannot treat an industry which has been in existence eve since the War—and we must remember that during the War they were sowing the seeds for the development of this industry—as an infant industry.
Those of us who believe in the Free Trade policy have always said that once you give an industry protection you will always be told, "Give us time to develop." It is the same old story. I pointed out in the Debate last year that the same thing would happen with regard to Ottawa. It does not matter how long an industry has been in existence, once it has the advantages of protection it demands them for ever. I suggest that an industry that is allowed to build itself up without such measures usually
proves itself more efficient in less time than does an industry which continually claims protection which is given to it by the State.
I want to make another point as to why the industry do not need this particular prohibition. I remember that last year the Parliamentary Secretary scored a very clever point in reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) with regard to the prices in terms of gold of the manufacturers of Switzerland and Germany as compared with the controlling prices of our own manufacturers. Our own manufacturers of dyestuffs are reaping advantage because of the depreciation of the pound. If you want to import a dyestuff into this country the dyemakers in England have at least a 30 per cent advantage, and that in itself should be sufficient protection for the dye-makers of this country.
I want to say a few words about the international cartel between the principal dye-making concerns of this country and the powerful organisations on the Continent. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech, said that if there was no prohibition the dyemakers of this country would be subject to the fierce competition of the Continental dyemakers who could make dyes in such quantities that they could dump the surplus here. That might have been true if there had been no cartel agreement, but I have yet to learn that a cartel is entered into without agreement both as to markets and as to price. What is the purpose of a cartel if it does not parcel out the markets as between the different members signing the agreement? The very fact of there being a cartel would prevent the competition and dumping of which the Parliamentary Secretary-spoke. I should like to know where the Parliamentary Secretary has got his information from with regard to prices. The probability is that the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) would agree with me that it is impossible for a dye user in this country to get a valid quotation at the present time. You cannot get a foreign manufacturer of dyestuffs to quote to-day for any dye made in this country. It is impossible to get a price. It is impossible for British users of dyes to ascertain whether the price of domestic production is competitive with that paid by their competitors abroad. We have no means of knowing or of comparing the
figures, and it would be very interesting to know whether there is any official source from which we can get those figures. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us his source of information on that point.
So far as I am able to judge, there is no danger of competition from members of the cartel, with the consequence that there is virtually a monopoly in this country enjoyed by one firm. Reference has been made in the document to small firms, but a very small proportion of the dyes used in this country are made by those small firms. Anyone who has any knowledge of the textile industry will confirm me in that statement. The Parliamentary Secretary made one point of which he was rather proud. He said that the Import Duties Advisory Committee realised that the cartel was not imposing extra burdens on the users of dyes. But they have been very careful to recommend that Clause 4 should be put into the Bill. What is the reason for Clause 4, except the fact that while the Import Duties Advisory Committee say that there is no complaint as to imposing prices, yet the users fear increased prices in the future, and they recognise the legitimate fears of the users by inserting Clause 4 in the Bill, and nominating themselves, on their own recommendation, as being the party best suited to deal with that particular danger.
I should like to draw attention to the statement in the White Paper, on page 5, referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, where the Import Duties Advisory Committee say:
As regards the present, it has been frankly stated that the users have no serious complaint as to the prices charged by the dyestuffs industry in comparison with the prices charged by the continental makers.
Who was the person or persons who frankly stated that? It would be very interesting to anybody who is connected with the textile industry to know the name in that particular case. My information is entirely opposite. Everyone who uses dyes is aware that as soon as the international cartel agreement was entered into it was followed immediately by a substantial increase in the price of dyestuffs, and so far as I know that has not been altered. Reference is made to that point in the report of the Colour
Users' Association, and I should like to quote the words of the chairman of that association. I will hand the document to the Parliamentary Secretary. Speaking on the 1st August, after the Import Duties Advisory Committee had issued their report—they issued their report in July—the chairman of the Colour Users' Association said:
Last year, you will remember, I made a protest against the very considerable advance in prices made by the British makers at the moment when we were making great efforts to reduce our production costs. Dyestuffs are out of conformity with world wholesale prices.
That was said at the; end of August of this year.
The index figure for dyestuffs still remains at approximately 200,"—
The Parliamentary Secretary quoted 175.

Dr. BURGIN: 150.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Here is the chairman of the Colour Users' Association putting it at 200. He proceeds:
as against the Board of Trade wholesale commodity index figure of 101.7.
That is to say, wholesale commodity prices on all other goods work out at 101.7, while dyestuff at the present time remain at 200. I shall be very interested tc know who made, with frankness, the statement in front of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that no one charges the makers with inflating prices of dyestuffs.
The Parliamentary Secretary almost made a reference to the use of the dyestuffs industry in providing a means of research in the field of organic chemistry. Everyone agrees that that is a splendid thing. It is one of the things in which we were lacking, in which we were behind before the War. It is a great step forward. I would not deny the utility, the absolute necessity of research in organic chemistry, but I say that the industries, particularly the textile industry, ought not to be called upon to pay for research in organic chemistry. Why a charge of that nature should be laid at the door of one particular industry, in the main, I fail to see. A reference was made by the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to the question of national defence. There, again, I am willing to admit that the dyestuffs industry can be very useful. We were behindhand before the War in regard to
it, and it was a really serious question for this country when the War broke out. I should be the last to deny the utility of work in that direction, but why should a particular group of industries bear the cost of it? Why should it not be a question of the cost being put at the door of the State rather than that we of the textile industry should be called upon to pay that cost?
I want to say a few words with regard to the difficulties that are being experienced in regard to the export trade. Fortunately, in the woollen and worsted textile trade we have had an improvement, even in exports.

Dr. BURGIN: Hear, hear!

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I expected those cheers, but I do not want us to be too proud about it. A lot of loose statements are made about the increase in the export trade of the textile industry. I have examined the figures and I find that since the War we have lost 62 per cent. of our export trade, so that if we get back 3 per cent., do not forget that there is still 69 per cent. missing.

Major PROCTER: Is it not true that we lost that trade under Free Trade? We are improving now.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I have never heard it argued that you lose export trade by having a system of Free Trade. I think that can never be contended, but it is beside the point. There are many reasons why we have lost the trade, not all of them fiscal reasons. The cotton textile trade or the woollen or worsted textile trade can never be as we would wish to see them unless we recover some of our export trade. I think there will be no challenge of that statement. My point is that the competition is so severe that to-day there is any amount of business being done in the Bradford textile trade on pure cost and nothing else. The competition is so severe that an increase, by however small an amount of one essential raw material in the production costs, is against the true interests of the textile trade and the country generally.
I am convinced that there is no necessity for the Bill. The dye-making industry, from the figures quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, is strong enough to stand on its own feet, and competition, so far as I can see, which would endanger the trade is practically nil in view of the
cartel arrangement made with producers abroad. For a period of 12 or 13 years dye users have made tremendous sacrifices in order that there should be built up an efficient dye-making industry. It has cost them millions of pounds, and thousands of hours of inconvenience. It is therefore time that they had a reward for all the sacrifices that they have made; they are entitled to be treated with fairness. The best thing for the trade is not a cartel again, but an open market in which they can purchase their wares. That would give them the best protection. There is no need for these restrictions. The best thing for the textile industry is that it should now be free from restrictions, and I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

8.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I do not intend to keep the House very long, because I am going to pin myself down to the practical issue and try to answer some of the arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. When I spoke in the House on 8th December, 1932, I said that I was one of the biggest protagonists of the Dyestuffs Act, and I reminded the House that if prohibition was granted for 10 years any industry ought to be able to organise itself and be in a position to hold its own. The late Lord Moulton expressed the opinion that if prohibition was granted for five years it should be sufficient for an industry to reorganise itself, and that after that prohibition ought to go. I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on agreeing that prohibition on certain imports into this country is necessary, but with regard to the Dyestuffs Act I want to show the House that not only is it a burden on the cotton trade but there is no need now for its existence. Many figures have already been quoted. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted an average price of 1s. 1d.—

Dr. BURGIN: 1s. 6d.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I do not mind if it is 2s., and I cannot contradict the hon. Member, but the average price in my works is nearer 3s. 6d. than 1s. 6d. Let me repeat the figures which I gave when I spoke on the 8th December, 1932. I said:
Imperial Chemical Industries put up the price of one colour from 4s. 4d. to 6s. 1½d; of another from 5s. to 7s. 6d.;
another from 3s. 7d. to 6s. 11d.; another from 3s. 8d. to 5s. 7d.; from 4s. to 5s. 9½ d.; from 3s. 8d. to 5s. 2½ d.; from 6s. to 8s. 4d.; from 4s. 4d. to 5s. 11½ d., and from 2s. 5d. to 3s. l½ d."—[OFFIOIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1932; col. 1833, Vol. 272.]
Those are the major colours one has to use in the cotton industry. I warned the House on that occasion that if the Bill was carried Imperial Chemical Industries in this country would enter into arrangements with the Interssen Gemeinschaft in Germany, and with other Swiss firms, and that a cartel would be formed by which they would have the users of dyestuffs in the hollow of their hands and charge whatever they liked for the colours which they were selling us. What I said then has come to pass. This cartel has been formed, but, apart from that, the price of colours which has risen 40 per cent. during the year has been further increased by Imperial Chemical Industries by another 12½ per cent., and to-day we are paying 52½ per cent. more for the colours used in the textile industry than we did 18 months ago. I hope this House is beginning to realise the terrible distress of the cotton trade in Lancashire. As I have told the House before, the majority of works in Lancashire to-day can show nothing but losses year after year, and yet on the top of that the Government, not meaningly, put forward legislation which is going to hamper them at every turn. Take Japanese competition. I want to know whether the Parliamentary-Secretary can tell me whether Imperial Chemical Industries in this country, through the cartel, are selling colours to Japan cheaper than they are selling to us in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: Would the hon. and gallant Member like the answer now?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Yes.

Dr. BURGIN: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I am pleased to hear it, but what an anomaly it is that we should be prohibited from buying colours from abroad for the manufacture of our goods, which have to be exported to our overseas possessions in competition with Japanese goods, and that the Japanese should not be prohibited from sending their goods into this country or into our Dominions or Colonies. How can this trade carry on under those
conditions? I see that the same Development Committee is to be continued in existence. Let me read again the names of this committee and see how far dye users have any influence on it. On 8th December, 1932, I said:
Mr. Woolcock, the chairman is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries. Mr. Blundell is a dye maker. Mr. Cronshaw is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries. Mr. Forrest Hewit is a dye user, and a director of the Calico Printers' Association. Major Holliday is a dye maker. Then we have professor D. T. Morgan, and next Mr. James Morton, who is a dye maker. Mr. Palmer represents the Board of Trade. Then we have Mr. Davidson Pratt; and Mr. J. Rogers is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries. Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith represents the Bradford Dyers; another dye user. Mr. Thomas Taylor is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries; and then we have Professor J. F. Thorpe. Mr. G. S. Whitham represents the War Office, and Mr. T. M. Wilcox is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1932; col. 1831, Vol. 272.]
There are, therefore, on the Development Committee only two dye users, and a preponderance of dye makers and those associated with Imperial Chemical Industries. I ask: is that a fair committee to go into the question as to whether we are being charged extortionate prices or not? In the Bill it is proposed that we should go before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but how are we to prove that the prices we are charged are preventing us from getting into foreign markets and putting our goods on the home market? The whole thing would be perfectly impossible, in my opinion, and would be no solution at all. It has been asked by an hon. Member opposite why, if this cartel is formed—it has been formed—should dyestuffs be prohibited? I have no objection to a tariff. What I object to is that you should prohibit any competition whatever with a big vested interest in this country. We know what the "I.C.I." is. We know that it is a huge vested interest. The Colour Users' Association which practically represents all those in Lancashire, is definitely opposed to a continuance of prohibition. Here I quote:
The Association has declared itself opposed to the continuance of the Dyestuffs Import Regulation Act and also to the extension to the dyestuffs industry of any degree of protection whatsoever.
I do not suppose that the Government will withdraw the Bill, but I think they will make a great mistake by harnessing us for ever to an industry which, during the 30 years it has had the benefit of the Act, has failed to produce, with very few exceptions, any of the great essential colours that we have to use in our industry. An hon. Member has said that there are 2,000 colours. There are far more. The "I.C.I." has only produced two out of 18 chrome colours, and we have to pay a high price for these colours owing to the agreement with Switzerland, which has taken advantage of the fall in the pound. If the industry in this country had been able to produce practically all the colours that we wanted, I should have had very little to say. In 13 years they have certainly increased the basic colours and the direct colours, which we were producing before the War. They have increased them enormously at our expense and at the expense of the cotton industry. That has been easy, but in producing what I call the essential colours, that we have to use in competition with Japan, they have failed and failed egregiously. I have no hope of the Government withdrawing the Bill, and if in the interest in the Lancashire cotton trade alone I shall be bound to vote against the Bill.

8.39 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I wish to express not only a word of appreciation of the clarity with which the Bill has been introduced, but of the skill with which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade avoided any reference to the polysyllabic nomenclature of modern dyestuffs which makes the discussion of these dyes a wearisome burden to the memory. I want to deal with a quite special point. We have heard references made to the complaints of users of dyes, but to the ultimate users, the workmen and the consumers, no one has so far paid the least attention. The word under which I would make my plea is on page 2 of the Bill, in line 4. There there is that attractive word "efficient." I take it that "efficient manufacture" must include safe manufacture. In his opening remarks the Parliamentary Secretary said that by millions of pounds we had lessened our import of dyes. But between the dates to which he made reference, 1913 and 1932, there has been a
phenomenal rise in the incidence, in workers and wearers, of dye dermatitis. That is to say that gratifyingly great as is our home trade, we have not yet reached that approach to perfectly safe manufacture that the foreigner seems to have reached.
It is well know that both dyes and explosives have both internally and externally very grave risks. Internal risks are shown in sometimes fatal toxic jaundice, which is notifiable to the Home Office. External risk consists of irritable, painful disfiguring and disabling dermatitis. It is met with to-day among the workmen with too much frequency, and among those who wear the products of the dye industries. Our towns would be dull and drab without the female sex, who make life beautiful by the galaxy of colours they wear, which make all the difference between post-War and pre-War femininity.
As far north as Wigan, Dr. Prosser White has made an international reputation by his writings on industrial dermatitis. In the Midlands Dr. Ingram, at Leeds University, is drawing attention to this problem. In London Dr. Parsons, of the Ministry of Health, has issued an official memorandum on the subject of fur-dye dermatitis. Last July I had to preside in Dublin over the skin section of the British Medical Association, which was devoted largely to the consideration of dye dermatitis, because the heavy incidence of this disease is a source of trouble to the doctors and of most expensive litigation to those who are engaged in the manufacture and trade.
Therefore I ask for consideration by the Government of Clause 3 of the Bill and Sub-section (6) of the principal Act which is referred to, where we find these words:
(d) Any Government Department which appears to the Board to be specially concerned with such development
may be asked to nominate a representative. I hope that in Committee "Government Department" may be made into "Government Departments," so that the experience of the Ministry of Health and even more so the special experience of the Medical Department of the Home Office in maintaining health in industry, may be drawn upon, so that a certificate of safety in home use before the pro-
hibition of any imported dye will ensure a reasonable degree of security for worker and user.

8.43 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: We are all obliged to the hon. Member who has just spoken for dealing with this matter from the point of view of scientific research. From his speech I could not be sure whether he was enthusiastically for or against the Bill. I rather gathered that he was distressed because of certain omissions. In a crowded House we have not been able to discover any strong support of the Bill, except from the Parliamentary Secretary. This is an important Bill. Although the cotton industry and the whole country are so vitally concerned, the Government cannot find six Members to come here and give support to the Bill. There are 56 Members representing Lancashire. They are vitally concerned with this Measure. The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) showed courage and independence in speaking his mind. He never hesitates to speak in the interests of Lancashire. Except for one or two, hardly a Lancashire Member has thought fit even to be present.

Major PROCTER: There are only three Liberal Members present in spite of the fact that a cardinal principle of that party, namely, Free Trade, is involved in this discussion.

Sir P. HARRIS: We have here our only Member from Lancashire, and our leader who is a host in himselfand wortha whole battalion of the supporters of the Government. He has never hesitated to put the case against this Bill in the interests of the cotton trade. My hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) has also been here to present the case for Bradford. We are doing more than our share in criticism of this Bill. If the rest of the House showed the same percentage of enthusiasm as this party the fate of this Bill would not be in doubt, and indeed a Measure of this kind would no longer be on the Statute Book. It is to be recollected that the bad time through which the chemical industry went before the War was not due to any conspiracy on the part of foreigners or any desire to ruin an important industry in this country. It was due to our neglect
of scientific education in our universities. For years, the late Lord Haldane, then Mr. Haldane, preached the necessity of scientific research if we were to hold our own in the chemical industry.
It is interesting to recall that the inception of the chemical industry in this country, especially in the dyes section, was due to two foreigners—Brunner and Mond—who came over here and showed great enterprise in establishing that industry. I recommend to hon. Members the interesting life of the late Lord Melchet which has just been published and in which they will learn of the remarkable work done for chemistry in this country by Ludwig Mond, a German chemist, assisted by John Brunner, afterwards Sir John Brunner, a Swiss chemist. The success of the industry in its dyes section has not been entirely due, even to the powerful protection given by a system of prohibition. It has been due, to a great extent, to the progress of science in our Universities during the last eight or nine years. In Cambridge, for example, a great change has taken place in this respect. It was a place where Greek and Latin once almost dominated the studies, but now at every corner one finds laboratories and buildings devoted to the study of chemistry and to scientific research.
It was generally agreed 13 years ago—though some of my hon. Friends then opposed the Measure—that apart from the question of Free Trade and Protection, special circumstances connected with the dyeing industry justified special treatment for that industry not only in order to have in existence here an industry which was essential in its relation to the cotton trade, but also owing to the needs of national defence which had been emphasised by our experiences in the War. It cannot be too often repeated, however, that the original measure produced in 1920 was to foe "for 10 years and no more." The Parliamentary Secretary very skilfully avoided reference to those words "and no more." It was to be a temporary Measure. The chemical users and the chemical industry agreed that 10 years of this protection would be adequate to establish the industry here in a position to hold its own against reasonable foreign competition.
In 1930, the Bill was to disappear automatically from the Statute Book. But then all kinds of interests appeared on the scene. The Secretary for Mines will remember the great fight which then took place. I do not know what was his attitude on the question, but he will remember how this issue divided all political parties. Tremendous pressure was brought to bear in favour of continuing the Measure, but in spite of that pressure, by a majority of about 30 it was agreed that the Bill should expire and that the original contract should be kept. Then another place exercised its powers; the Bill came back here, and we had an eloquent plea for just one year more to enable the industry to investigate and make provision for the future. After 12 months, it was said, we could reconsider the position. The House of Lords on that occasion won, and by, I think, 89 votes it was decided that the Bill was to continue for 12 months. Historic events, however, upset our calculations as to future reconsideration. There was a change in the composition of the House of Commons. By the machinery of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, this Measure was prolonged for a further two years and about the middle of this year it was continued for yet another year.
That was just before the end of the last Session, and when I ventured to protest the Parliamentary Secretary with his usual suavity told me that I need not worry and that there was to be a new Measure which, he was sure, would satisfy all my reasonable requirements. I do not wish to use harsh terms, but nothing could be further from the reality, because now we find that instead of the Measure, originally limited to 10 years, being prolonged for another six or seven years it is to be made permanent. It is to become one of the Statutes of the country not to be altered except by special legislation. That is a distinct breach of the pledge given to the colour-users 13 years ago and again three years ago. It is a betrayal of a most important industry, and I am surprised that the great battalions of Lancashire are not here to defend the interests of their constituents which are being so jeopardised.
I would remind hon. Members to whom this problem may be new that this involves prohibition. The hon. and gallant
Member for West Salford rightly differentiated between this form of protection and a tariff. This is not a question of a 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. duty. It does not matter how much you argue or plead, if it can be shown that an English manufacturer can produce this or that dye at what is alleged to be a reasonable price, then, by no hook or crook can you smuggle that dye into this country. Nothing has happened since 1930 to alter the position except to strengthen the case for allowing the original Measure to lapse. The report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee, which I will not say was emphatic, but which put the case fairly for the colour users, showed how strong was their opposition.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his very fair statement of the scientific side of the case and of the facts and figures, pointed out that there were now upwards of 2,000 different brands of colours being imported from abroad by licence. The Development Committee put the figure at 1,600, and obviously, as the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford pointed out, that is not an over-statement, but is, if anything, an under-statement. The original 1,600 different brands of colours that were imported represented over 1,000 distinct types, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Salford pointed out that two only of the 18 chrome colours are being produced in this country, after 13 years of monopoly, experiment, and industrial research. Several of the large users have reported that imports comprise as many varieties as, or more than, those obtained in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford pointed out, the English makers, naturally, having a monopoly, concentrate on those materials for which there is a large demand and which they are able to produce in bulk.
What the report pointed out still holds good, namely, that special stress must be laid on the fact that industries depend to a great extent on the novelty of the effects procurable. One of the most remarkable things about the Lancashire cotton industry is that they have largely adapted themselves to new conditions. The great progress made in the last 20 years, during this time of severe competition, is in design, so that in many things they can compete—in the beauty
of fabrics, in quality, and in variety—with Continental manufacturers, but they have had to put up with this unfortunate handicap, and they have not had a fair deal. In a very important document that was issued a few years ago they pointed out that they had had to send many cloths abroad to be dyed or printed because of the difficulty of getting the necessary dyes owing to this cumbersome machinery of licensing. Let any business man in any trade appreciate what it must be to have to obtain essential raw materials through a committee by a system of licences. I think we are entitled, therefore, to put the case of the colour users, who have put up for 13 years, practically without protest, with the inconvenience of licensing. Three years ago they demanded the raising of this embargo, and if their case was strong three years ago, it is three times stronger now, in 1933. No case has been made out, no new argument has been adduced, not a single new fact, new figure, or detail, to strengthen the case of the dye users for their privilege.
It is true that the Import Duties Advisory Committee has been considering the matter at some length. These three gentlemen have been sitting in judgment on the cotton industry and the conflicting claims of chemists and textile manufacturers. They admit that colour users contributed materially to the smooth working of the Act, but they point out, in paragraph 8, that the colour users are apprehensive as to what may happen in the future, particularly in view of the formation of an international cartel. My hon. Friend kept the international cartel, quite rightly, to his peroration, and he dismissed it as something quite unimportant and hardly worth the consideration of this House of Commons. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Salford was not so much comforted. He may have been more suspicious as to the possible working of the arrangement. He has had some experience, as a practical manufacturer, and he knows the effects. He was able to show that in 18 months, in his own personal experience, some of the products of Imperial Chemicals have gone up in price no less than 52 per cent. In fact, during the last few months, they have gone up 12 per cent.
I would remind the House that the case for the continuance of this Act was largely built up on low prices. It was argued that in spite of this protection, in spite of prohibition, in spite of this practical monopoly, Imperial Chemicals and the various dye industries had not taken advantage of their privileges, but had gradually lowered prices. They were able to point out that at the very time, in 1930, when the Bill was going through this House, there had been an actual drop in prices. Some of us thought that perhaps that was a sop, that those low prices were not likely to be permanent. We were told that we were very suspicious people, and we were assured that this great organisation could be trusted to keep prices low. but, unfortunately, we were true prophets. During the last three years prices have gone up, as my hon. Friend opposite has pointed out, and as the colour users submitted to the tariff committee. The right hon. Gentleman the former President of the Board of Trade, now the Secretary of State for the Colonies, was the great defender of this Act of Parliament. I have looked up his speeches, and they were very eloquent, persuasive, and patriotic. One thing he emphasised was that the manufacturers had brought down their prices because they were steadily becoming more efficient. Is it suggested that prices have gone up during the last 18 months because they have become steadily more efficient? Prices have gone up because, under the aegis of this prohibition, the manufacturers have gone into an international cartel.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary described—I hope I am quoting his words correctly—this international financial arrangement as a very sensible pooling of markets by the interests concerned. What does the pooling of markets mean? It means exploiting the various countries by agreement. We are not told the history of these agreements. I do not know if they are in the bosom of the Parliamentary Secretary; I do not know whether he has seen the terms of these agreements. Probably he has, but I have not, the House has not, and the Members for Lancashire have not. He is in a privileged position, therefore, but I assume that the agreements are something of this kind: The German manufacturers says to the English manufacturers, "You can have India and exploit
India; we will have Australia. You can have China, and we will have Japan," and so on. The world is divided up between the various powerful interests.
When we were discussing this problem in a previous Parliament the former President of the Board of Trade appealed to our patriotism and said that this was an essential industry for national defence. Have the Services been consulted? We are defending this great industry not for industrial or commercial reasons, he said, but in order to secure our national defence, so that we may properly supply the necessary chemicals for essential munitions. These patriotic people, who were to be engaged to produce chemicals to defend our nation against invasion, have now made a convenient domestic arrangement with—my German will not permit me to pronounce the word—with the "I.G." We are assured that if this German combine were allowed ingress to our country it would set out by dumping to ruin the whole of our trade, yet Imperial Chemical Industries come to an international agreement with them to exploit the world industrially. Is not that a very serious fact? Is it a thing to be dismissed lightly by the Parliamentary Secretary as something of no importance? "Oh," he says, "there is the Tariff Advisory Committee"—the three gentlemen who run the industries of our country. They say, in paragraph 20 of their report, that the majority group of the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee recommended that
the contents of any international agreement now in existence, or hereafter to be made, should be disclosed to us.
With characteristic modesty they accept the responsibility. This is not a matter of Free Trade or Protection, but something far more important, and I suggest that before we part with this Bill we should know the contents of this agreement, if not now, at any rate on the Committee stage. We have a right to know. The Bill is giving privileges to a great and powerful industry. I am not satisfied to hand over the contents of this agreement to three gentlemen. They imply in their remarks that the agreement is harmless. If it be harmless, why should we not know? Why all this mystery? Why should it not be put on the Table of the House, or, if it is too long to be printed, placed in the Library?
We have a right to ask because we are setting up this gigantic monopoly at the expense of the most important and vital of our exporting industries.
I have referred at some length to the cotton industry, but the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) showed that it is equally vital to the textiles of Yorkshire. If there has been some manipulation between these two organisations, we should know what they are. We have no right to break trust with the textile industry. They have been patient and long-suffering in the interest of the nation, inspired by most patriotic. motives. They have submitted to this inconvenience for 13 long years. It was argued on another occasion that we should give consideration to the people employed in the dye industry. After being 13 years in this privileged position, they are strong enough to hold their own with any of the great continental combines. The fact that a German combine is willing to come to an agreement with them is clear evidence of that.
The figures given in the House two or three years ago showed that there were over 7,000 people employed in the industry. I do not know what the figures for the textile trade are, but I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that 500,000 people in Lancashire and thereabouts are dependent for their living on the well-being of the cotton trade. The number of insured workers in the cotton, bleaching, dyeing and printing trade is 116,000. Two or three years ago 13.7 of them were wholly unemployed, and 23.5 temporarily stopped. That meant that 43,000 people in that industry were out of work because of the severe depression of the export trades, against the 7,000 persons engaged in the whole of the dye industry. In the report circulated by the colour users in the cotton trade it was pointed out that one colour-using firm alone in the last 10 years had dismissed more workers than the whole of the number employed in the dye industry. The Government have not made a case out for this breach of trust with the colour users. They are sacrificing the interests of a great and important trade at the behest of a powerful, wire-pulling, strong monopoly. I shall vote against the Bill, and I shall do my best to oppose it at every stage. I hope that Lancashire
will know what the Government are doing backed up by the big battalions who do not trouble to come to the House, and I shall make every effort to get it repealed at the earliest possible moment.

9.13 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I wish to oppose this Bill on entirely different grounds from those put forward by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir DP. Harris). When we look back over the last 14 years we must admit that measures which were taken to protect the dyestuffs trades have resulted in tremendous progress, not only in the scientific production of dyes, but in the establishment of a very prosperous industry in this country. The industry was established by means of tariffs introduced by one who was a Liberal, and the results which have been obtained have passed even the expectations of those who designed the original Act.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: There was no tariff at all.

Major PROCTER: Whatever it was, it was Protection. I speak as a Protectionist. I believe in Protection. I believe that we ought to have protection against unfair competition. If competition is immoral and unfair, if there is a challenge to the bread and butter, to the wages and the livelihood, of the British worker, I, as a Nationalist, believing in my own country and the progress of our own working people, feel that we should, by means of a tariff, protect their industry against that competition. If we have goods coming into this country from a nation which produces them as does Japan, where there is a rice standard of living, and those goods are challenging the standards of life here which were built up by the efforts of countless generations of social reformers, then where such a case has been made out—as it has been with Japan—if a tariff is not effective we should have prohibition.
I welcome the fact that in this Bill there is a glimmer of prohibition, and if it were applied against Japan I would support it every time, but, as far as I can see, these dyes are not made under immoral conditions. There is no stealing of our patents, there is no filching of our business, there is the European standard
of life where the foreign dyes are made. It is not because of the unfairness of the conditions under which foreign dyes are made that I am opposing this Bill. I am opposing it because we do not apply tariffs, but apply prohibition. If there are tariffs they can be regulated so that equity is done between the manufacturer and the producer. As a believer in tariffs at the present time, as one who realises that had it not been for a tariff policy we should never have had a bargaining weapon with which to re-establish our position in the world as the first exporting nation, and one who feels that a tariff policy properly applied can effect great things for any industry, I am opposed to a Bill which leads to an abuse of all that for which we have fought and in which we believe.
The Bill makes it possible for a large monopoly to utilise the favoured position in which it is put by the Government to the detriment of an industry which at the moment is suffering from the fiercest kind of unfair competition in every market in the world. If we had a tariff we could watch that tariff. If we give any industry a monopoly, so that it can override even the opinion of this House, so that we cannot challenge it or criticise it, I believe that we are going beyond the mandate on which we were elected. We ought not to give monopolist powers to a combine like this. I oppose the Bill not because I am a Free Trader, because I am not, nor on the grounds which have been put forward by my hon. Friends opposite, who, I feel, are in a different position, but because I think that the success of our tariff policy impels every one of us who believes in tariffs to see that the system is not abused. I must, to my regret, vote against the Bill.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Short as the Debate has been it has given rise to several interesting speeches, not the least interesting of which have been those from supporters of the Government. At one stage of the Debate I thought we should not have the usual spectacle of supporters of the Government criticising its policy, but apparently we cannot get through any Debate without that spectacle. At least two supporters of the Government have criticised the Bill because it continues the system of prohibitions rather than establishes for the dyestuffs industry a tariff
system without prohibition. The speeches of both the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) were of that character. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), in an admirable speech, reinforced the powerful arguments he brought forward a year ago against the continuation of this Measure. The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) raised a very interesting point. I have always regarded him as an enthusiastic supporter of the Government, but he ought to be, and from his speech to-day he obviously is, well aware of the fact that if we adopt a system of Protection or, as in this case a system of prohibition, shutting out of the country certain commodities in a desire to foster their production here, it does mean that we have to depend, at any rate for a time, on inferior products rather than have the superior products which came from outside. He made it clear to us that these inferior products have, in the instances he gave us, at any rate, been injurious to those who have had to use them.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in an interesting and informative speech, showed very great adaptibility to the new circumstances in which he finds himself. Indeed, he spoke almost with vehemence in support of a policy which, as T happen to know, he as vehemently opposed at an earlier stage. Obviously, he has adapted himself very well to the changed circumstances in which he finds himself. The main facts of the case as he put them are not in dispute. All of us are prepared to acknowledge that the Act of 1920 has resulted in a phenomenal growth of the dyestuffs industry in this country. The Act played a very important part in that process. On the face of it, it did seem anomalous that we should have in this country one of the largest textile industries in the world and yet have to depend almost entirely upon outside sources for the dyestuffs needed to finish those textiles. Obviously, such a position had to be remedied. I do not think that any of us who sit on these benches would dispute that fact at all. Steps have been taken to remedy the position which existed, but we are concerned at the moment with the present consequences of the continuance of that policy.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told us a few weeks ago,
on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, that it was a little difficult to deal with an industry divided against itself, and he again made reference to that matter in the speech which he delivered a little while ago. Because that was the case, the matter was sent to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and this Bill is the result of the investigations and recommendations of that committee. As far as I can gather from a perusal of the Bill, in these days the words of the Import Duties Advisory Committee go; whatever they say seems to be implemented as speedily as possible by His Majesty's Government. Their word is law, and whatever we on these benches may think of the method the Government have of setting up extra-Parliamentary bodies to deal with difficult subjects, the committee will form a screen behind which the Government can shelter if, as a result of some of their proposals to the House, things do not turn out quite as they should.
Here we have a situation in which dyestuffs producers and dyestuffs users are by no means in agreement—as I could show, but I do not want to use a lot of quotations, as many have been used by other hon. Members. It is, however, not difficult to collect quotations from the various memoranda which have been issued by the dyestuffs industry to show that they are very antagonistic to the continuance of this Act. It appears, however, that for the moment they are going to bow to the inevitable and not on this occasion, as one would have expected, put up a more vocal protest in the House than they have done.
I have seen it argued, somewhere in the innumerable memoranda which have appeared on the subject, that in the pre-War years, when the textile industry was doing a trade to the value of over £200,000,000 annually and were using £2,000,000 worth of dyestuffs a year, it was a very stupid and short-sighted policy on their part not to have encouraged the establishment in this country of & dye industry instead of contenting themselves with importation from the Continent. I fail to see the force of that argument. According to the essential nature of all productive enterprises in society as it is economically constructed to-day, the textile manufacturer was solely concerned with his own profits in his own industry. That, of course, is the sole motive—I do not think that will
be denied, and I am not saying at the moment that it is either good or bad—of all capitalist enterprise, because that is its nature. Therein lies the danger of continuing to give special protection to the dyestuffs industry in this country. The dyestuffs manufacturers will be primarily concerned—they must be, in the very nature of the case—with making profits in their own industry. Advantages to the colour users will be quite secondary. If advantages accrue to the colour users as a secondary factor, well and good, but the dyestuffs makers will be primarily concerned with making profits in their own industry.
Can it be said that what the Dyestuffs Act was passed to bring about has been accomplished? The Parliamentary Secretary has inferred that it has not yet been completely accomplished; there is something more to be done. As far as anyone contemplated the future in 1920, what was intended has very largely been accomplished. More than that—and in what I am about to say lies our main objection to the continuance of this Act—we first get, as a result of the special protection that has been given, a virtual dyestuffs monopoly in this country. That is the first stage in the process. What is the purpose of forming a monopolistic dyestuffs combine in this country? Various arguments are put forward in support of the proposal: first, that it is done in the name of efficiency. I believe that the late Lord Melchett used that kind of argument, that the main purpose of bringing the industry into a big combine was efficiency. It was hoped that through that efficiency benefits would accrue to the using industries on a considerable scale. Another argument is that the combine is being formed to bring some degree of order out of chaos, and a third argument states that it is done to keep prices on a remunerative level—to use a word that is a favourite on the lips of the hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home). In a word, the whole thing is done to stabilise profits at as high a level as eircumstances will permit.
What is it that alone threatens the monopolistic power of any such body in any country? A similar monopoly elsewhere, in some other country. When two such monopolies face each other, one of two things is going to happen: they are
either going to fight one another or, alternatively, they will merge their interests. That is what has happened in this case. Here, the British Government have given protection by means of prohibition over the last 13 years. The first consequence is the development in this country of a monopolistic combine in the realm of dyestuffs production. When it is faced with monopolies elsewhere, it does not fight them; it merges with them. They pool their interests. Herein lies the danger of continuing this Dyestuffs Act as we are being asked to do to-day. The colour users have every reason to be very seriously concerned about the present position. Here we have a dying textile industry, and it must in such circumstances have to pay toll to a monopolistic dyestuffs industry, whatever arrangements or machinery the Government may devise as a check on the situation which has been created and which is to be perpetuated by this Act.
I have just one closing word to say. The House parted a little while ago with a Measure which was rightly stated to embody proposals for safeguarding the interests of Newfoundland bondholders. We are now asked, on the same day, to give a Second Reading to a Bill to afford special protection to a great international capitalistic combine. Two such Measures following one another reveal very clearly the real nature of the Government which at the moment governs this country. It acts mainly in the interests of the great financiers. When it is not doing that, it is acting in the interests of those who run great industrial combines. We on these benches shall have no hesitation whatever in going into the Lobby against this Measure.

9.34 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: There is one point on which I think the whole House is agreed, and that is the value of the industry which has been built up in this country since 1920. A great new industry has been established with a large export trade, of value to science and research and of strategic value to the country. The Act of 1920 has been justified by its results. That Act was passed with the support, I may mention, of Mr. Asquith, speaking for the Liberal party. Circumstances were then most exceptional. There was no attempt to establish this industry by means of tariffs; tariffs would
have been perfectly futile for the purpose, and would merely have raised prices indiscriminately and have protected inefficiency. On the one hand, the industry itself was being most carefully organised and built up, and on the other hand a system of licensing was established in order to afford it a measure of shelter during that process. The policy was generally supported at that time and achieved the results for which it was intended. Lord Moulton, who was the real originator of the movement, considered that a period of five years would be adequate for the upbuilding of this industry; however, in order to make assurance doubly sure and to give plenty of time, the Act of 1920 gave a period of 10 years.
When that 10 years came to an end in 1930, as always happens in every such case, the industry which had been specially favoured declared itself most reluctant to give up its privileges. The colour users declared themselves to have been penalised for 10 years by much higher prices than they would otherwise have had to pay, and complained that they had also suffered from long delays and many inconveniences in obtaining the dyes they needed. They said: "We have made these sacrifices for 10 years; we agreed to do so; now we call upon the other party to the agreement to fulfil their undertaking and to bring this period to an end as originally agreed." There is, however, no infant industry which will ever agree that it is grown up; they are all Peter Pans; they never grow up. Once an industry, whatever it may be, in this country or in any other, is given special protection in order to establish and organise itself, whenever the special period comes to an end it claims more protection and complains that it will be ruined without it. Here you have this infant industry which is 13 years old and it is still claiming to be spoon-fed.
We have had a remarkable Debate to-day. The House has been discussing the Bill for 2½ hours, and after the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who moved the Second Reading, not one speech has been made from any quarter of the House in support of the Measure—not one speech from any party, not that that makes any difference to the Government, or to the result. There was a Patronage Secretary to the
Treasury in the last century who, after a Debate in which the whole of the argument was against the Government, and when no reply of any kind was attempted, said: "After all, a majority is the best repartee." So it will no doubt be in this instance. Hon. Members who have come in lately will not have heard two very significant speeches from the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) and the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter), both of them opposing the Bill, both from Conservatives and both speeches from Protectionists and loyal supporters of the Government. Even they, on this occasion, have turned and have declared that this Bill was impossible for them to support, and that they would even go so far as to vote against it.
The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford, who knows this matter in and out, being himself a textile producer on a large scale, told the House that since the renewal of this Bill and since the combination between the German producers and the British producers, the prices that he himself has been paying have increased in the last 18 months by over 50 per cent. Here is an hon. and gallant Member, speaking from his own experience of what is actually happening as the result of Measures such as this. He is a textile manufacturer who has to pay more than 50 per cent. additional prices because of the monopoly which has been created by the State and which cuts against the interest of the consumer.
In this matter there are two parties concerned, as always in matters of trade: the producers and the consumers. The producers want to get as much as they can, and the consumers want to secure the commodities that they require at the most reasonable prices. Here, the consumers are organised into a great body, the Colour Users' Association representing the textile trade and other trades, and the Colour Users' Association have definitely declared against the Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill did not mention that as a matter of any importance, but he said that they had declared against the Bill but that, very loyally, they would of course assist in making the scheme, if adopted, operate as successfully and as smoothly as might be. The essential fact is that, of these two great interests, the producers demand the
Bill and the consumers oppose it, but the Government come down heavily, as usual, on the side of the producers, regardless of the interests of the textile manufacturers. They declare in favour of the Measure, because it is supported by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The Government declare in favour of the dyemakers.
This House has again and again, in recent months, heard of the plight of Lancashire. We Lancashire Members have repeatedly brought the state of the industry before the House, and the House of Commons and the country know that Lancashire, or many parts of Lancashire, are on the very edge of ruin; that Japanese competition is most formidable, and that our exports have fallen off from 7,000,000,000 yards to 2,000,000,000 yards. There has never been known, in any country, so great a collapse of so vast an industry in so short a time. One of the many things that are necessary to save Lancashire is that, at all events, any avoidable increase in the cost of production of their articles should be eliminated, that unnecessary expense should not be required from Lancashire, and that, so far as possible, without reducing the standard of life of our people, we should reduce our costs. Yet we have the Government deliberately helping to raise the price of one of the essential raw materials for the manufactures of Lancashire.
Could there be a more foolish action on the part of any Government which wishes to assist the producers but which, at the same time, raises the cost of their raw materials above what they might otherwise be? The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford has told the House about those increases of 50 per cent. in the prices in 18 months. But the Government are doing that very thing. The Government come to the House of Commons, and the President of the Board of Trade makes a speech very sympathetic to Lancashire. The Government fully realise the gravity of the position, "are exploring every avenue," "are taking all relevant considerations into account," "are lending a ready ear to every proposal that can be made," but nothing happens, except that they support this Measure that will have the effect of putting up the prices of one of Lancashire's raw materials of manufacture
above what it might he. Lancashire says to the Government: "At all events, if you cannot help us, do abstain from hurting us."

9.44 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: It is only with the permission of the House that I can reply to the points raised. We have just heard again the suggestion that the Government are on the side of the producers. I had occasion to remark about this before, that you do not ultimately help the consumer by making your producer bankrupt. It is about time that the interests of the producers were seriously considered as a definite matter of Government policy. A good deal of attention has been directed to the cartel, and I was asked some questions by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in his opening speech. I was asked whether there were countries to which Great Britain exported dyestuffs. There are, and I have a long list of them, with particulars of what were exported, the value and the average price per hundredweight. The cartpl is not, in inself, in the least a harmful organisation. The British export trade owes a great deal of its advance to cartels, in the sense of international agreements whereby, instead of cutthroat competition, the different interests concerned have agreed that they would not oppose each other in certain markets. It is a very wise and sensible proposal provided that it is not administered improperly or contrary to the interests of the consumer. I can tell the House, from experience at the Board of Trade, of numbers of cartels which are proving of the greatest possible advantage to British export trade. Do not, therefore, let it be imagined that the fact that this international cartel, made in 1932, has come into existence, is a disadvantage either to consumer or producer.

Sir P. HARRIS: What are its terms?

Dr. BURGIN: Its terms have been disclosed to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, which has been called upon to advise in this matter, and they have found specifically that its terms are not such as to result in any undue advantage to the manufacturer. They have found that the increase in price of 22½ per cent. was merely a return to the level to which prices had voluntarily been reduced in the hope that more business would be
obtained. When it was found that the policy of reducing prices had not increased the consumption, the price was very properly put back to a level that was remunerative.

Mr. THORP: Have not the Committee also found that the users are apprehensive as to what may happen in the future, particularly in view of the formation of an international cartel?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, they have found that there was apprehension, and, in order to deal with that apprehension, Clause 4 has been inserted in the Bill. I was asked about employment. The number of people employed in the industry of making dyes is 7,500. Those employed in the consuming industries are, of course, more than that number.

Sir P. HARRIS: How many?

Dr. BURGIN: I have no knowledge of where the industries that consume dyes begin or end.

Sir P. HARRIS: They run into very many thousands.

Dr. BURGIN: It is quite impossible at a moment's notice to find a figure which has neither a beginning nor an ending. I have said perfectly frankly, and I have taken the House into confidence throughout the Debate, that the numbers employed in the consuming industries are greater than in the producing industries.

Sir P. HARRIS: Ten times more.

Dr. BURGIN: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Baronet should suggest an arbitrary figure—

Sir P. HARRIS: I can give the figures.

Dr. BURGIN: I would not like to say how many there are, but the figure is certainly very much higher. The hon. Member for Westhoughton referred to the Yorkshire Dyeware Chemical Company and he quoted from a report. I understand, however, that that body are not mainly makers of synthetic dyes. They are chiefly known for their sales of natural dyes. Consequently, the observations which they have made have very little bearing on the subject matter which we are discussing here to-day, which is,
very largely, synthetic organic dyestuffs. No evidence whatever has been brought before us to-day that the price of dyestuffs would have been lower if the British dyestuffs industry had not been developed. There has been a sort of vague assumption that the policy of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act of 1920, which has been continued in subsequent years, has resulted in some increase in price, but there is not a word of evidence in support of that, and I entirely deny it. The cartel came into existence because there was a system of regulation. Hon. Members seem to imagine that that must be a disadvantage, but let it be remembered that, if our British dyestuffs industry had not been developed, we should have been entirely in the hands of the Continental manufacturers, who would then have regulated their prices and methods of delivery, and, indeed, would have decided whether or not we should obtain any dyestuffs at all.
In my opening remarks I said that there were between 1,000 and 2,000 dyes which we did not make in this country at all. The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) said that he wished the number were so small, and that according to his information it was nearer 5,000. I am content to take that as the figure. What is the use, when we are still dependent on the Continent for something between 2,000 and 5,000 dyes, of talking as though we were wholly independent and could do exactly as we like? Although I mentioned that some observations might be directed to the question of the surplus productivity of the great Continental dyestuffs works, at Ludwigshafen and other places, not a word has been said about that. I do not know how hon. Members below the Gangway who support the Free Trade argument would propose to deal with the possible dumping of that great surplus productive capacity on this market—[HON. MEMBERS: "By a tariff!"] The Import Duties Advisory Committee have expressly found that a tariff is not applicable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Perhaps the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading the White Paper which we are discussing. The whole of the argument is set out in paragraph 13. The point is that there are works abroad
capable of supplying the demands of the whole world. How are we to expose ourselves to that attack unless we have some system of prohibition, of import under licence, of import on the free list immediately we discover that the article is something which we want? It is not suggested that the licence system has not been perfected; indeed, the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) was good enough to say that in recent years it had been brought very much up to date. Where is the handicap in saying: "We cannot get this dyestuff in this country, and we accordingly ask for a licence. If we secure a licence it comes in free"? Surely, that is a sensible arrangement.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: As I am one of those whom the hon. Gentleman has challenged, may I ask him what the cartel is for if it is not for the purpose of regulating the market?

Dr. BURGIN: The cartel is in existence lest there should be a prohibition, and that is the whole point that I have been endeavouring to make. The hon. Member for South Bradford asked who was the hardy person who frankly admitted that there had been no complaint as to prices? I will tell him. It was a deputation from the colour users, and it had never been challenged until it was challenged to-day by him in this House. The deputation said that there was no serious complaint at all to-day, but there was an apprehension, and that apprehension is going to be dealt with in the way I have described.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Did not the hon. Gentleman quote the words—that there had been no complaint of British prices as compared with Continental prices? That is a very different thing.

Dr. BURGIN: We are both dealing with the same point. The hon. Member asked me a question on the quotation which I read. The quotation is on page 5 of the White Paper, where the report deals with cartels. It says:
As regards the present, it has been frankly stated that the consumers have no serious complaint as to the prices charged by the dyestuffs industry in comparison with the prices charged by continental makers.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The cartel has put prices up all round.

Dr. BURGIN: It goes on to say that they are apprehensive as to what may happen in the future, particularly in view of the international cartel, but there is no complaint whatever at present.

Sir H. SAMUEL: No; they did not say that at all.

Dr. BURGIN: The House will be able to judge. I was very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford mentioned Japan. I thought it not unlikely that some hon. Members would do so, and I have taken a good deal of trouble to ascertain the position of the dyeing industry in Japan, and to see whether the Japanese textile industry can compete with us on that ground as well as on others. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member and the House that the prices of dyestuffs sold to Japan show quite clearly that there is no selling of dyestuffs to Japan on terms which are likely to enable Japan to compete with us. That is quite definite information. The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan), who is known to be a skin specialist, was very interesting on the subject of dermatitis, but I wonder whether he really meant that, on a patient suffering from dermatitis being brought into a hospital, he could tell at sight whether the dermatitis was caused by a foreign or by a home-made dye?

Dr. O'DONOVAN: On the information which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us two hours ago, I am almost certain that it could be produced by a homemade dye.

Dr. BURGIN: The whole subject of dermatitis, of course, is of great interest, but, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to tell whether it arises from a homemade or a foreign dye. A dye containing injurious ingredients, wherever made, may produce dermatitis, and as often as not it is due to something in the skin and not to something in the dye. The real point of this Bill is to make the system of importation under licence permanent. The reasons have been given, and I will conclude with a quotation from a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) three years ago. I have been twitted, quite properly, by hon. Members opposite for having a Free Trade past, but actually in the matter of dyestuffs I was always on the
side of the angels. Be that as it may, the right hon. Gentleman crystallised the position that we have reached very well in his speech on that occasion. Mr. William Graham, then President of the Board of Trade, had introduced the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and had referred to dumping. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen said:
The right hon. Gentleman addressed a powerful argument with regard to dumping. He said that, unless this Act were continued, the German dye interests might flood our Markets with such large quantities of dyes as might destroy the industry. That is not a question for the continuance of the Act for one year or for five years. The flooding might take place at any time. That argument is one for maintaining the Dyestuffs Act in perpetuity. I can quite understand hon. Members wishing the Act to be continued in perpetuity, but that is not their proposition to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1930; col. 1311, Vol. 246.] It is the proposition of His Majesty's Government to-night, and I ask the House to give it a Second 'Reading.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I am, not for the first time on this question, voting against the Government, because I do not believe in this method of dealing with the problem with which we are faced. I have said on many occasions that the proper way of dealing with the matter is by the policy of a tariff and not by prohibition and licence. I propose to put before the House a few cogent reasons why the view which has been expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong. There

is used in my constituency probably the greatest weight of dyestuffs used in any constituency in the country. What happens when these people have to come before the Licensing Committee to get their licence to import dyestuffs? They have to explain why a particular dye has to be used and disclose all the secrets of their business to people many of whom are their trade competitors. It is all wrong that they should be placed in that degrading position.

I was delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said about Japanese competition, and I hope he will support us in advocating effective remedies to deal with that great menace. If you have a tariff, subject to the payment of duty, a person who wants to import can import what he likes. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he had had no complaints from colour users. I can bring him hundreds of complaints which are justified. They may not go before the Import Duties Advisory Committee to state their case but to my knowledge there are hundreds of cases that are brought forward. Until the Government face this issue in the right way, they will never be able to achieve success for this dyestuff industry without complaint from colour users.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 72.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[10.3 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Burghley, Lord
Duggan, Hubert John


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Burnett, John George
Dunglass, Lord


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Atholl, Duchess of
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elmiey, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Carver, Major William H.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Castlereagh, Viscount
Emrys Evans, P. V.


Barclay Harvay, C. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Evane, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Flelden, Edward Brockiehurst


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry, B.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fleming, Edward Lascelies


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Flint, Abraham John


Blindell, James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Borodale, Viscount
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fulier, Captain A. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Conant, R. J. E.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bracken, Brendan
Craven-Ellis, William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)
Goldie, Noel B.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Cross, R. H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Graves, Marjorle


Brown, Brig. Gen.H. C. (Berks.,Newb'y)
Dickie, John P.
Grimston, R. V.


Buchan, John
Donner, P. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drews, Cedric
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, Edward W.


Hanbury, Cecil
Martin, Thomas B.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, Sir Richard James
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Scone, Lord


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Milne, Charles
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmslord)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shuts, Colonel J. J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Moreing, Adrian C.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Morgan, Robert H.
Skeiton, Archibald Noel


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smithers, Waldron


Hornby, Frank
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Somerville, Annesiey A (Windsor)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Soper, Richard


Howard, Tom Forrest
Munro, Patrick
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Spens, William Patrick


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Stones, James


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nunn, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
O'Connor, Terence James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Summersby, Charles H.


Ker, J. Campbell
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sutcllffe, Harold


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Patrick, Colin M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Knight, Holford
Pearson, William G.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Knox, Sir Alfred
Penny, Sir George
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-[...].)


Law, Sir Alfred
Petherick, M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Potter, John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lewis, Oswald
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Liddall, Walter S.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsden, Sir Eugena
Wells, Sydney Richard


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Rankin, Robert
Weymouth, Viscount


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Ray, Sir William
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Crovdon, S.)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mabane, William
Rentoul, Sir Gervals, S.
Wills, Wilfrid, D.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


MacDonald, Malcoim (Bassetlaw)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ruggles-Briss, Colonel E. A.
Wiss, Alfred R.


McKie, John Hamilton
Runge, Norah Cecil
Womersley, Walter James


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lord Erskine.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, Gabriel


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Banfield, John William
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Percy
Remer, John R.


Bernays, Robert
Hicks, Ernest George
Rickards, George William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cape, Thomas
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn.Sir A. (C'thness)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallaileu, Edward Lanceiot
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mllner, Major James
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT [MONEY] (No. 2).

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1933, and to make further provision for the training and assistance of persons who are capable of, and available for, work but have no work or only part-time or intermittent work, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)—

A. it is expedient, in connection with the provisions of the said Act amending the Unemployment Insurance Acts, to provide (from and after the date on which the provisions of section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, empowering the Treasury to make advances to the Unemployment Fund, and paragraph (4) of article eight of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, are repealed)—

(1) for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

(a) to the National Debt Commissioners of such sums, by way of temporary advances to the Unemployment Fund (to be repaid with interest to the Exchequer within six months), as may be necessary to make good any insufficiency of the fund to pay any instalment required by Part I of the said Act to be paid towards the discharge of the liability charged on that fund by section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, in respect of advances made thereunder with interest thereon and the liability incurred by the Treasury to the National Debt Commissions in respect of the provision of money for the purpose of the said advances;
(b) to the Unemployment Fund of such sums by way of temporary advances (to be repaid to the Exchequer with interest before the end of the financial year) as may be required from time to time for the purpose of making any payments properly falling to be made out of the Unemployment Fund other than any such instalment as aforesaid and the repayment of such temporary advances as are mentioned in the last foregoing sub-paragraph.

(2) for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of such sums by way of advances to the Unemployment Fund (to be repaid to the Exchequer with interest not later than the end of the second financial year next following) as appear to the Treasury to be required to enable that fund to discharge any liabilities (including the due repayment of any such temporary advances as are mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (1)), which, in the opinion of the
1046
Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Treasury, that fund is or will shortly become insufficient to discharge;
(b) of any increase attributable to the passing of Part I of the said Act in the sum payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by virtue of subsection (3) of section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as amended by section one of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1929, or by virtue of sections forty or forty-one of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, or of section three of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931;
(c) of any sum by which any education grants under any other Act are increased by reason of the additional powers and duties conferred and imposed by Part I of the said Act on education authorities;
(d) of any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in the amounts which are by virtue of paragraphs (1) and (2) of article eight of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, to be paid into the Unemployment Fund; and

B. it is expedient, in connection with the provisions of the said Act amending the Unemployment Insurance Acts, to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in carrying Part I of the said Act into effect; and

C. it is expedient, in connection with the provisions of the said Act relating to Unemployment Assistance, to provide—
(1) for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the several members of any Unemployment Assistance Board constituted by the said Act of such salaries as may be determined by the Treasury at the time of their appointment respectively, so, however, that the aggregate amount of the salaries of the members of the Board shall not exceed the sum of twelve thousand pounds per annum; and
(2) for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of the salaries and allowances of the officers and servants of the said Board and the remuneration, salaries and allowances of the members, officers, and servants of any appeal tribunals constituted under Part II of the said Act;
(b) of such contributions to the said Board as the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the said Board and with the consent of the Treasury, may determine to be sufficient together with annual local authority contributions to enable the Board to pay to such persons as—

(i) are between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five years; and
(ii) are either persons whose normal occupation is employment
1047
in respect of which contributions are payable under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1932, or persons, who, not having normally been engaged in any remunerative occupation since attaining the age of sixteen years, might reasonably have expected that their normal occupation would have been such employment as aforesaid but for the industrial circumstances of the districts in which they reside; and
(iii) are capable of and available for work, allowances based on their needs and those of their households, regard being had to the resources of all members of the household other than such resources as may be excepted by the said Act;

(c) of such contributions to the said Board as the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Board, may with the consent of the Treasury determine to be necessary to enable the Board to provide or arrange for the provision of training, instruction or occupation for such persons as aforesaid, to make payments to such persons while undergoing training, to make adjustments with public assistance authorities in respect of relief granted to persons who are or might have been entitled to such allowances as aforesaid and to defray any administrative and incidental expenses incurred in carrying Part II of the said Act into effect, and any expenses incurred in giving effect to reciprocal arrangements made thereunder in relation to Northern Ireland;
(d) of any superannuation allowances, lump sums and gratuities payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act;
(e) of the expenses of any Government department attributable to the carrying of Part II of the Act into effect.

In this Resolution the expression 'annual local authority contributions' means, in relation to each of the three years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, contributions to be made to the said Board annually by the councils of counties, county boroughs, and large burghs, computed as follows: the contribution of each council shall (subject to any adjustments necessitated by changes in boundaries and, in the first year, to an abatement in respect of the fact that the said Act will not be fully in operation for the whole of the year) be three-fifths of the sum of the two following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the estimated expenditure (excluding the cost of administration) incurred by the council in the year ending on the thirty-first day of March or, in the case of Scotland, the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, on the provision of relief (not being relief in respect of medical needs) to persons to whom
1048
Part II of the said Act would have applied if it had then been in operation, upon the assumption that no persons would in that year have been deemed not to be such persons by reason of special reports made in their case under the provisions of Part II of the said Act; and
(ii) the difference between the estimated cost of administration incurred by the council in the said year in connection with the provision of relief and the estimated cost of administration which would have been so incurred if Part II of the said Act had then been in operation;

subject, however, in the case of any council which in the present financial year is receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament for special grants to local authorities in distressed areas, to the limitation that the annual contribution of the council shall not exceed the difference between that grant and the sum of the two amounts as aforesaid, and subject also in the case of all councils in any of the said years in which the cost of relief provided in Great Britain by reason of persons becoming chargeable to such councils in consequence—

(i) of the withholding of allowances in cases of special difficulty owing to the breach of conditions on which the allowances were granted; and
(ii) of persons becoming ineligible for allowances by reason of special reports made in their case under the provisions of Part II of the said Act,

exceeds 5 per cent. of the total contributions, to a reduction equal in the case of any council to a proportionate part of the excess:

Provided that for the purpose of calculating the contributions for any of the said years of any council, which in the present financial year is receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament for special grants to local authorities in distressed areas, the sum of the two amounts aforesaid shall be reduced by an amount equal to that grant."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

10.14 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: It was expected on the Committee stage of the Money Resolution that there would be an abundant opportunity for discussion of the important items set forth therein, but, unfortunately, the opportunity was not given. Therefore, it is necessary to review shortly, at any rate, the position on the Report stage before the Money Resolution leaves the House. On Part I, it is necessary to remind the House that there has been practically no denial of the assertion that, if the Money Resolution passes in its present form, there is no
hope whatever, at an early stage, of any restoration of the cuts in unemployment pay. I was struck by a sentence in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he said that if he did not have £6,250,000 which he is saving owing to the re-arrangement of the periods under Clause 17, he would not be in a position to consider a reduction of Income Tax and other cuts.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain) indicated dissent.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman denies that statement, but he did make a statement dealing with the matter, which struck me at the time. He said:
Will hon. Members kindly remember that the more the Exchequer has to pay out, whether it is to the Unemployment Insurance Fund or for any other purpose, the less the Exchequer must have left with which to make those remissions of taxation or restorations of cuts which everybody hopes may some day be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1933; col. 97, Vol. 284.]
I do not want to over-emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman may have said in the rest of his speech, but that statement implied that he contemplated, first of all, remission of taxation, secondly, remission of cuts and, lastly, if there was any chance, restoration of the cuts in unemployment pay. While giving on Second Heading what appeared to be some improvement for the people who are in Part I and making the 26 weeks a possible 52 weeks, if they have five years' contribution to their credit, the Financial Memorandum clearly shows that the Government are expending £8,250,000 on these new entrants from Part II to Part I, which might well have been spent on restoring the cuts to those who had that promise made to them. I do not think it can be doubted that most hon. Members when they fought their elections promised all along, as the Government had promised, that as soon as possible the cuts to the unemployed would be restored. It can also be said that there are very few people in the House, if any, who contemplated that when there was a surplus of money the opportunity would not be taken to restore those cuts. In so far as numbers go from Part II into Part I, owing to the new arrangement, the Government are to that extent saving £6,250,000 and they are spending
£8,250,000, which is equal to 20 per cent. of the whole expenditure upon Part I, which might well have been spent not only in restoring the 10 per cent. cuts but in reducing the contributions to the fund, which could have been done without any difficulty.
I am not in a position to speak about the debt to-night, although I cannot understand why we are not in a position to discuss the finance of this matter as a whole. The fact remains that there is also a sum of £5,500,000 a year to come to the Exchequer which might well have been spent upon the unfortunate unemployed. I do not want to use strong or wild words, but it does look to me very much as if it is almost equal to a violation of the pledged word by the Government taking the particular course that we are asked to take to-night on this Financial Resolution. I maintain that those who vote against this Financial Resolution will at least have the right to go into the country and make it clear to the unemployed that by passing this money Resolution there is no hope in the near future for any restoration of the sacrifices they were asked to make in order that the country may be placed in a more satisfactory financial position.
The Government have not answered the question which was put in relation to the members of the Unemployment Board. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury answered many questions and he was very frank, but he was not explicit and did not answer some questions which were put to him. It is necessary to remind ourselves of the position of what are called the transitional cases. When unemployed on transitional payment were placed under the public assistance committees there was one striking feature during those Debates and that was that Members of the House were very reluctant to place these transitional cases outside the scope of the Minister and under public assistance committees without giving them some right of appeal direct to those who were to settle the amount they were to receive. As a result of our discussions it was arranged that any man or woman who was on transitional benefit and was not satisfied with the amount of the award might appeal direct to the committee and, if necessary, take someone to plead his case for himt That kept direct touch be-
tween transitional cases and the public assistance committee.
When the public assistance committees were set aside in Rotherham and Durham hon. Members were concerned to find that while the amounts were settled by individual persons who were the servants of the special commissioners, there was no access to the commissioners, and they felt that there should be a right of access to the special commissioners. The result was that if a man has a grievance not only has he the right to go before the special commissioners but he has also a right to take some one with him. Before this right of appeal was allowed there was considerable uproar in the county of Durham. There was a number of disturbances, but as soon as it was possible for the applicants to meet the commissioners and have their case put by one of the local officials, the whole grievance on that score disappeared and things went much more smoothly. I am not uttering a threat but stating a fact when I say that the result of putting these commissioners on the Consolidated Fund Bill and outside the influence of people locally, will be considerable disturbances in the country because of the lack of opportunity of meeting those who will decide the applicants' fortunes.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked on Monday last what was the position of these commissioners. We have not had an answer. For how long are they to be appointed? What is to be their position? Are they irremovable by some future Government? We are entitled to something like an explicit answer to those questions. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that we should have an opportunity for discussing this matter when we dealt with the Consolidated Fund Bill, and on Motions for the Adjournment of the House, if we wished. But he did not answer this question: If there are immediate grievances felt by the people who are on transitional payment, will it be possible to put questions on the Order Paper and have an answer given in this House? We ought to know to-night. Are these commissioners to be in the same position as judges? The fact remains that they are to be in a dictators, but unlike other dictators they dictatorial position. They are to be
are not to be seen and not to be heard. They are to do their work in secret. They are not to be called upon to defend their position. It seems to us that that is in direct line with some of the policies prevailing in other countries, which are sometimes condemned in this House. I sometimes think that the attacks which are made upon my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol are rather a means of defence than of attack by those who make them and that under cover of those attacks dictatorship of the worst kind is being put into operation by this Financial Resolution and by the Bill.
Upon the question of local authorities the Minister has not met the problem at all. I agree with him when he says that as far as the distressed areas are concerned it is a different problem and is not met by the problem of taking full possession of the whole of the unemployed. But the fact remains that in counties like my own, where there is a rate of 17s., there will be still 1s. on the rate for the unemployed, apart from the rest of the Poor Law. That is a very lamentable position indeed. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that not only local authorities, but Members of this House, feel that we have been badly let down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's refusal to take over financial responsibility for the whole of the unemployed. I thought, when earlier statements were made to that effect that there was a road out, some sort of an opening through which the Minister of Health and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could wriggle. The fact remains that the Government allowed the country and this House to believe that, they were going to take full financial responsibility for the unemployed They have finally refused to do so.
I dare say that this Resolution will have the support of the House. It is a Resolution which will put upon great numbers of families a grievous burden. It is all very well for hon. Members to talk with a certain sense of moral superiority about the necessity of making the family bear the burden. But to families in areas such as many of us know, the duty of maintaining sons or fathers, uncles or nephews, involves a burden which no Member of this House would like to bear, personally, in the connection with his own family. The Bill will
have the support of a majority in this House but we shall fight it and of this we are certain. Whatever the House may think of a course which is designed to reduce Income Tax and give consideration ultimately to those who are well-placed, in order to lay a burden upon people who have been subject to ruthlessly severe conditions during the past few years we believe that in voting against this Measure we shall carry the best elements of the country with us, and that we shall be justified at any future election.

10.32 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House for more than a few minutes. I propose to deal only with one point, and I hope I shall not be, in any sense, controversial. I have risen with the sole object of making an appeal to the Chancellor if the Exchequer in connection with the arrangement which this Financial Resolution outlines for the share of the National Exchequer and of the local authorities in supporting the able-bodied unemployed. The matter was indicated in the speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) but no more than indicated, and I hope I shall not be traversing ground already too well trodden, if I remind the House of the main principles which I understand were laid down with regard to this point. They were, first, that the National Exchequer was going to take on the burden of supporting the class to which I have referred, and secondly, that there was to be a special allowance for the depressed areas.
I appreciate the fact that if one analyses the language in which these pledges were given, one finds many loopholes and qualifications by which the Government can escape from any attack upon them in that connection on this scheme. But I do not think I am wrong in saying that the general impression created in the country—indeed the principle laid down—was that this burden of unemployment rested far too heavily upon individual districts through no fault of theirs and that the National Exchequer ought to come to their assistance. To what extent that assistance should be given is no doubt a matter of discretion, but at the same time there was a general
principle, and I think in dealing with the matter we are entitled to comment upon that fact.
What has happened, or what is to happen, as we see it, so far as it can be estimated, as the result of this Financial Resolution? I will take an individual instance. It is an amazing thing to find a disparity so wide as is exhibited by these figures, that under this scheme Glasgow will still have to bear a burden of contribution of £410,000, being nearly £100,000 more than the great community of London, seven times its size, will have to sustain.
I say that on the face of it that is an extraordinary anomaly, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown that his heart is not incapable of being softened upon these matters, because he has already made a concession, which I hope will lead him, upon disclosure of these figures, to make a further concession. I think he might be all the more prone to do that, coming as he does from a community which gets off very lightly, as I see it. Whereas Glasgow has to pay a burden of contribution of £410,000, Birmingham, which is not very much inferior, in size at least to Glasgow, has. only to bear a burden of £38,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that Birmingham is much better governed than Glasgow. I will not enter into a controversy upon that matter, because I hope to touch his heart rather than excite his dialectic powers, but at least he must concede that that is an amazing difference between these communities, and I cannot believe that even if Birmingham be better governed than Glasgow, which I entirely dispute, it is better governed to that extent.
I would ask the House and the Chancellor to take a look into the future. One of the most formidable difficulties with which we have been faced in recent times in this country is the drift of the great Northern industries to the South. It is the cause of very much heartburning as well as of very great hardship and distress. It is not merely from Scotland, because similar experiences have been suffered by other parts of the country. The North East Coast of England is suffering as badly as Scotland, and so also are the North West portion
of it and large areas of South Wales, and as I judge from some of the figures that I have seen, all of these communities are going to suffer to some extent in the same way as the West of Scotland under this scheme.
I said I would ask the House to look into the future, and how I see the picture developing is this: The Government at some time or other must do something to stop the drift of these industries from the North to the South, because no country can suffer the wastage which takes place by that drift. The industries that come to the South have to have made for them new roads, new drains, and all the equipment which is necessary for a modern community, and a large number of new houses have to be built, whereas in the parts from which these industries have drifted you have the old houses, the old roads, and all the old equipment; and as a population does not very readily move from one end of the country to another, you have a large mass of derelict people nursing a very natural grievance, and perhaps developing feelings which are not very favourable to the stability of the country.
It seems to me that somehow or other the Government will have to deal with that matter, and the question is: are they going to consider it now when there is a possibility of preventing some of these ills before they become exacerbated? What does any captain of industry consider when he is estimating the chances of starting his business in one part of the country or the other? The first thing he looks at is the rates of the community. I have myself in recent times, in my capacity as a member of the Scottish Development Council, known of two cases in which people who had considered starting in the Glasgow area were deterred by the rates which are charged there. We talk about vicious circles, which is a phrase very much overworked, but here is the worst form of social vicious circle that you could contemplate. What happens? As these industries go away, the existing rates have to be borne by a smaller number of people and a smaller number of industries, and they become higher and higher upon the people who are left. These great communities, which by their industries have previously been the support of the country, become the sources of great distress and trouble.
My appeal to the Chancellor is to consider whether he cannot do something in order to mitigate the evil which undoubtedly will increase and grow. Is it not possible that he can find some way in which this amelioration can be made iu order to soften the blow which these distressed communities have to suffer? I understand that there are some hon. Members who raised the question of mis-government creating increased rates in certain districts. Is it possible to get rid of that question by giving aid according to the proportionate amount of unemployment that there is in the various districts? It ia not the fault of the West of Scotland or the North-East Coast of England or of the Cumberland district that they are suffering from unemployment worse than London. Is it fair that they should have to bear such an extravagant burden as they have to endure? The principle to the contrary has been conceded by the Government, and the only question is to what extent are you going to mitigate the evil and what steps are you going to take?
I venture to ask the Chancellor, against the stage when we are dealing with the Clauses of the Bill, to consider whether ho cannot do something in a practical way to meet this difficulty. We shall be ir a very embarrassed position when we come to the Bill, because, as I understand it, we shall not be in a position to make any amendment to increase the charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, our mouths will be shut. This is the last opportunity when we shall be able to say anything, and I beg the Chancellor to keep in his mind that there is a great and bitter feeling of injustice in many communities in this country with regard to the incidence of these charges; and, if he desires to make matters easier for them and to expedite the course of progress in this country, I would beg him to take what I have said into account.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: At the outset I would like to say that in the main I agree with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home). As he stated, when once this Financial Resolution is passed the payments to the local authorities are fixed and cannot be altered under this Bill. I think everybody is agreed now that the
burden falling on local authorities is in some cases altogether excessive. I venture to disagree with the right hon. Member for Hillhead on one point, his reference to the fact that firms go into the question of rates when considering where to start business. I do not think that is quite the case, because de-rating has relieved firms following certain forms of production of practically almost all their local rating burdens. Therefore, rates would not enter so much into their calculations, but the rates are an important aspect of the question from the point of view of the community as a whole.
I have very little hope of the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing anything, however, because on the last occasion he told us that he had made up his mind. All that I can say is that, whether he likes it or not, this situation is creating for him a problem in the big cities. We on these benches are ofttimes blamed for being the creators of revolutionary thought, and it may well be that we do take part in that work, but the creators of revolutionary thought are not so much us as the forces of which complaint has just been made. Whatever differences there may be in the big city from which I come, people there are united in feeling that some measure of justice must be afforded them in view of the fact that they have to meet a cost of £400,000, as against less than £40,000 in Birmingham. It is £100,000 more than the whole City of London.
I turn now to what I consider is an equally important aspect of the situation. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) quite rightly raised the question of "cuts," and asked the Chancellor what was the position about the restoration of the "cuts." We are apt to talk about the unemployed as though they had suffered only one "cut." Unlike other public servants—teachers, soldiers and sailors—who have received one "cut," a 10 per cent. reduction, the unemployed have suffered a series of "cuts," at least three. Not only have the unemployed suffered a 10 per cent. "cut," but their benefit rights have been reduced to 26 weeks in a given year, and consequently the period of benefit has, on an average, been nearly halved. Thirdly, the conditions of benefit have been altered and made stricter. "Not normally in insurable employment" only operated after a person had received
well over a year's benefit—almost a year and five months. To-day it operates at the end of 26 weeks. Therefore, to-day the most unfortunate section of the community, those least able to bear it, have not met one cut but three cuts, including the most vicious cut of all, perhaps—the means test. I am not only asking for the restoration of cuts, but that in taking into account the treatment of the unemployed we should also take into account the other cuts which they have received.
I am not going to argue that this £8,000,000 which has been given in one direction would be better spent in another direction. Those who are getting the £8,000,000 are entitled to receive it. I declare, however, that the £8,000,000 is granted, not because it is right, but in order to buy off a section of the unemployed, to appease them at the expense of the others. In this matter of the cuts, the unemployed are put in a different position from the employed. When the Budget statement is made, the teachers can demand that their cuts shall be reduced. Every section of the community can go and say to the Chancellor: "You have a surplus. Give us a share of it." The one section that cannot do this is the unemployed. Under this Act it is not the Chancellor who is to decree whether the cuts are to go back or not; it is this authority set up under Part I. To-day cuts are on every section of the population. Bodies outside try to bring pressure to bear upon the Chancellor. Every hon. Member is meeting deputations, either here or in his division, from cinema people and others engaged in every form of trade who are taxed and want to have a share of the Budget surplus. Teachers and civil servants are agitating, and they have access to the Chancellor and his Department in order to state their views. The unemployed are by far the greater section of the community; yet, under this Bill, while we may have millions of money to play with, payments are not going to be dependent upon that, but upon whether the insurance fund is financially stable. To treat the unemployed in that fashion is wrong. The cuts were not made by a committee. They were made by the Government, and it is the Government's responsibility. No committee should be asked to undertake the restoration of the cuts. I often hear debates upon housing, but it is of no use giving people new houses unless you give them
the income with Which to maintain the houses once they have them. To-day all social progress depends upon how the unemployed will be treated.
I want to add a word upon another aspect which was raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in regard to the treatment of the unemployed under Part II of the Bill. I question whether the House is fully aware of what we are doing under Part II. We are engaged in taking the question of the unemployed out of politics and hand it over to local committees. When I last spoke I used in illustration the criminal and the judge on the bench. If we pass this Resolution, the unemployed are going to be worse treated and have fewer rights than any criminal. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland reserve to themselves in every criminal case the right to alter or quash a sentence, and to show mercy, and they are constantly exercising that prerogative towards the criminal population, but when the Commission makes a decision in regard to the unemployed, no Member of Parliament will be able to question it. He may raise a question in this House about a criminal sentence and can ask the Home Secretary to modify or to change it, but he cannot ask a question in regard to a sentence upon the unemployed. The reply given by the Minister of Labour in each case is that he has no power to intervene, because a body has been set up, and he has no rights over it. It is a terrible thing that this House of 615 Members should be engaged in depriving millions of our fellow human-beings of that access which even the criminal population have to the House of Commons and to the Government. I trust that whatever else this Measure does, it will show that this treatment of the unemployed is the most shameful thing in British politics.
The Government think that this Bill will take the unemployed out of party politics. You cannot take them out of party politics. You may shove the problem on to commissions, or on to whom you like, but 2,000,000 human beings who are unemployed will use whatever powers they have. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) attacked the hon. Member for Shettles-stone (Mr. McGovern) in regard to a
deputation of hunger-marchers at Edinburgh, saying "You have no right to use unconstitutional means, because every Member of Parliament has access, on behalf of his constituents, to a Minister of the Crown." That ceases to be the case. We are now to be refused the constitutional right of approach. The unemployed man shivering in the street has not even his union to defend him, because in many cases he has passed outside his union. Even if he is still a member of a union, it will be impossible for them to defend him, because the cases are so numerous. He is defenceless, and, in a little room, he is sentenced. He can appeal to another body, who sit equally in secret and make their decision, and he has no redress left but an answer of the Minister of Labour: 'This is the work of this body. They have heard the facts, they have made a decision, and I am not interfering with them."
I say that working people treated like that must take another course of action. I have often argued that, where a country had its access constitutionally, it has no need to take other steps to get its grievances redressed; but to-day, if this Measure goes through, the working people, or, at least, the sections of them who are to be treated in this fashion, will be perfectly entitled to use, and justified in using, any and every means to air their grievances. This Financial Resolution in many ways denotes the progress of the Bill. It means that, when we have passed the Resolution, we have decided that the cuts are not to be restored; it means, at least to my mind, that for 12 months more the unemployed must suffer; and I trust that those who vote for it will one day be treated by the men and women outside in the same fashion as they have treated them.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: I listened with great interest to the powerful appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the distressed areas. I listened also in ignorance as to whether that appeal was likely to bring, or to wring, any concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, as I listened, it appeared to me that the plea was being made much too late, for
the right hon. Gentleman adduced no new fact, he stated nothing which has not been already stated by myself and my colleagues and by other Members who have the misfortune to live in and represent distressed areas. He reiterated with greater authority those extremely powerful arguments which have hitherto fallen upon the deaf ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I can only hope that, coming from him, they will meet with more success than they have met with when they have been put forward by us who occupy the the back benches.
I intervene this evening in order to make the position of myself and, I think I may say, a few of my friends who represent distressed areas, perfectly clear. Those of us who support the National Government have nevertheless been somewhat critical of the financial provisions of this Resolution. I have said before that I believe that the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed should be a national charge, and, in view of a certain amount of what may be described ambiguity in that phrase, I should like to say that I mean by it, as I always have meant, that the whole of the money to pay for this charge should be found by the State, and that the whole of the administration should be undertaken by the State. That view I and my friends from distressed areas have consistently pressed upon the Government, and we were under the impression, after the Debate of the 6th July, that that was the view which was taken and accepted by His Majesty's Government, and that that principle would be embodied in the long-term proposals which the House is now considering. Naturally, I was disappointed that it is not so, and I think it extremely unfortunate that for all these months we have been allowed to labour under the misapprehension that that was their intention and that they intended to apply it in its entirety.
But although the Government have not gone the whole hog, it ought not to prevent us from being grateful for what has been done for the distressed areas. I have already expressed my gratitude for the temporary provision made in the summer, by which we have benefited to a certain extent, and I want to add my voice to those which have already expressed gratitude to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer for the additional concession that he made last week. I speak for one of the most distressed areas in the kingdom, and I consider it both idle and stupid to speak as though the concessions that have been made are negligible or as though we ought not to be grateful because they did not concede the whole demand that we make. I consider him a very lucky man who gets everything he wants in this world. I believe it is sound policy to take all you can get when the opportunity offers and to wait for another opportunity to get a little more.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), whose constituency adjoins mine, has been one of the strongest opponents of the National Government in so far as this question of the distressed areas is concerned. When we decided first of all to approach the National Government with a view to doing something on behalf of the distressed areas, we invited the hon. Member to join us, but he refused to be associated with us in any way.

Mr. MAXTON: Congratulations!

Mr. DICKIE: The hon. Member may alter his mind and vary his congratulations in a moment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street went to his constituency and described the efforts of this group of Members as being mere flapdoodle. Then we obtained a concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which Durham county receives £94,000. The immediate result of that was that every local authority in Durham reduced its rates by sums varying from 5d. to 1s. 4d. in the pound. Strange and paradoxical as it may appear, the fortunate local authority which was able to reduce its rates by the maximum figure of 1s. 4d. was the Chester-le-Street Urban District Council. Although political prejudice or party rancour may not permit him to thank us for having obtained this measure of relief, he might at least thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having lifted this burden off the shoulders of his constituents. In addition to that, as one of those who know the operation of the body that discharges the functions of local government in Durham, he might with advantage and wisdom impress upon his colleagues on the Durham County Council the desirability of being a little more careful as to how they spend the ratepayers' money. [Interruption.] I
know hon. Members do not like this but they might at least take their medicine. With the concession granted in the summer, the additional concession last week means that in Durham, after all deductions have been made and provision made for the essential services, we are better off to the extent of 1s. in the pound on the rates. If that is something to be sneezed at, I do not know anything at all about local government. An ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory. The ratepayers of Durham County are now feeling the advantage in their pockets. I would point out to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that it is not the large concerns and ratepayers but the local authorities who are benefiting. Socialist local authorities are to-day so realising the position of the county that they are passing on the relief granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the ratepayers who are their tenants, and they are actually reducing the rents of the council houses. These are the facts, and I submit that that is practical and effective work, although it still leaves us with a burden that is almost intolerable.

Mr. LAWSON: Hear, hear!

Mr. DICKIE: I do not know what the burden would have been if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been allowed to continue in office for another year. We in the county of Durham are very grateful for the measure of assistance which the National Government have given to us. The need for this assistance shows the gravity of the problem. I suggest to the House in all sincerity that neither doles to the individual in the distressed areas, nor doles from the National Exchequer to the distressed areas, will go to the root of this problem. In these areas thousands of workers will never, in the most favourable circumstances, be re-absorbed into their occupations. I differ from the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), when he spoke of our industries "drifting south." They are not drifting south.

Mr. McGOVERN: They are going west!

Mr. DICKIE: Our shipbuilding industry, our iron and steel works, and our
heavy engineering works cannot drift South. We are suffering from the fact—and this is a point which the right hon. Gentleman touched upon a little later—that, owing to the heavy burden which we are bearing, we cannot attract new industries. Until we solve that problem, there is no hope for the North-East coast and other distressed areas. There are 40,000 miners in the county of Durham alone who are unlikely to be re-absorbed into that industry. I wish to say here what I have said on the platform many times: that the solution of this problem was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Minister of Health and at the time of the passing of the Derating Act, 1929. That solution was the transference of labour and the redistribution of our population. I sincerely trust that in the near future the National Government will seek to apply that principle with the determination to succeed, if only in the hope of mitigating the evil of unemployment and preventing the utter demoralisation of thousands of honest workers who only ask for permission to be allowed to earn their daily bread by the labour of their hands and by the sweat of their brow.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot think that the House will desire to prolong a discussion which, when it is concluded, I fancy will be found only to have revealed one new point, and that was the point made by the hon. Member for Corf-sett (Mr. Dickie), when he told the House of the reductions in rates which had followed the concession made by me on the last occasion. After this Financial Resolution has been passed there will be a Very ample field in the course of discussion in Committee on the Bill to elaborate objections or difficulties which are found as to the procedure under the Bill. There are, however, one or two points which are covered by the Financial Resolution which will, when it is carried, limit discussion in the future. With regard to the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), he has not had the advantage that many of us have had of listening to a discussion lasting many hours upon this subject. If he had been able to spare the time to come down and take part in the previous discussion it would not have been necessary
for me to say again, what I say now to him, that all calculations founded on hypothetical figures of what the cost of local authorities in a standard year will be, are dangerous and unreliable at this stage. No local authority knows yet what will be the cost, as finally determined, in a standard ye'ar. I have seen enough of calculations that have been made, based upon the present classification of the various classes of persons who come for out-relief, to know that in a number of cases there will have to be very drastic alterations before a final figure can be arrived at. When my right hon. and learned Friend compares, for example, the amount which Glasgow will have to pay with what Birmingham will have to pay, he perhaps has not thought of the reverse side of the picture. I can quite understand, if I were to take my r ght hon. and learned Friend's figures as correct and work out from that what is the relief which Glasgow is going to get as compared with that in Birmingham, I shall probably find that Birmingham will be making representations to me wanting to know why it is that in the case of Glasgow, which is a little inferior in size to Birmingham, and which is probably a good deal more wealthy, the relief which is given under this proposal is not less than £298,000, whereas in the case of Birmingham it will only be some £25,000. My right hon. and learned Friend will, therefore, see that there are two sides to the question.

Sir R. HORNE: One is suffering much more than the other.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The one that is suffering much more gets much more relief; not an unfair proposal. In regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), as I have already had to point out, my trouble is that he never listens to anything that I say. He went a little farther to-night. He advanced a completely inaccurate description of what will be the effect of the Bill and misquoted the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. First of all, he misquoted the words, and then he misquoted the application. I dissented, and on looking at the passage in question, he corrected the words. I must ask him once again to read the speech when he will find that the remark I made to the effect that the more the Exchequer contributed to the Unemployment Insur
ance Fund the less it would have for other purposes was in reference to a suggestion that the Exchequer should take upon itself the whole burden of the debt which belonged to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The observation had no bearing on the £6,250,000; we were discussing another point altogether. The hon. Member is mistaken in saying that the Resolution precludes any restoration of the cuts in unemployment benefit.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: He did not say that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What did he say?

Sir S. CRIPPS: He said that it was unlikely there would be any speedy restoration.

Mr. DICKIE: I took down the words of the hon. Member and he said that by passing the Financial Resolution there was no hope of any restoration of the cuts.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member on this occasion used the words "in the near future." That is an interpolation which makes a considerable difference to his original statement that there never could be any restoration of the cuts if the Bill was carried in its present form. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made the same point. I say that there is no foundation for the statement. As to whether a restoration in the cuts takes place in the near future, or in the distant future, or in the middle future, must depend on a great many causes, which apply not only to unemployment but also to the restoration of all the cuts which were imposed at the time of the crisis. All I say is that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents an ultimate restoration, I do not say at what time, of the cuts imposed on unemployment benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. Under this Bill a committee is set up whose duty it is to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the financial standing of the fund. On that report the Chancellor makes his decision, but in the case of the rest of the community the decision is made not on the financial standing of the fund but on the surplus in any Budget. The surplus in the Budget will
come on now, but the Committee must await the report until some time after the fund has started to function.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not take any exception to the interruption. Let me try to make a little clearer how I see the position. The hon. Member says that a Budget surplus is going to come. He may be right, it may, and I will concede him this point, that as the Bill stands it will not be possible to restore the cuts in unemployment benefit if there was, or seemed to be likely, a deficiency in the fund. Of course, if the fund is to remain solvent, if it is to be self-supporting, what is the obvious consequence? What is it that is going to make the difference to the financial position of the fund wlhich will decide the question as to whether there is going to be a deficiency or a surplus. It is the question of the level of unemployment. The hon. Member knows that the present arrangements of the Bill are founded upon an average level of unemployment of 2,500,000. He knows that at present that is considerably over the actual figure of the unemployed. I do not say that we can be certain at this moment what is going to be the level for the next 12 months, but, at any rate, at the present moment the figure is substantially below the 2,500,000. Suppose that that figure were to go up very considerably; suppose that there were, instead of a surplus, a prospective deficiency in the fund. Can the hon. Member suppose that in that case there is going to be a Budget surplus? I can assure the hon. Member that that really postulates a complete reversal of the present condition of affairs in the country.
I put it to the House that really, if you take careful account of the actual factors which will weigh with us in this matter, you must see that the prosperity of the fund is bound to go hand-in-hand with the prosperity of the country. The two things are bound to go together. Therefore, if the prosperity of the country some day is sufficient to give the then Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of restoring cuts and remitting taxation, putting back the conditions as they were before the crisis, one surely can, without any very great demand upon probability or imagination, assume that at the same time the Unemployment In-
surance Fund will be showing the probability of a surplus.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to argue this, but, even conceding the right hon. Gentleman's point, you will have the position of a surplus that is to be known in April or May of next year. Your Committee cannot report on this fund before a considerable time has elapsed, and therefore you can decide on restoration of the cuts in April or May, but you cannot make it until this Committee has reported, which will be after a considerable lapse of time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken. To begin with I must protest again against the assumption that there is going to be a surplus next April, which will allow the restoration of general cuts. The hon. Member must not make any such assumption. It would be misleading the people of the country to make assumptions at the present time when we have not got sufficient material to justify them. But the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that it is necessary for the Committee to wait a considerable time. On the contrary Clause 17, Sub-section (2) states:
The Committee shall … make a report to the Minister on the financial condition of the fund at such other times as they think fit.
Therefore it is for the Committee to make a report on the financial condition of the fund at any time. There is no necessity for the long wait which the hon. Member mentioned. I really think that some hon. Members are making unnecessarily heavy weather upon this subject. There is nothing here which would justify any statement that it was impossible that cuts in unemployment benefit could not be restored at the same time as other cuts.
One other point about the Unemployment Assistance Board in Part II. A lot of questions have been put and theories have been evolved upon the subject which really do not depend at all on whether the board is on the Consolidated Fund or whether the salaries of the board are upon the Votes. These questions, some of which again were raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals, can be discussed in Committee. They are not affected by this point as to whether the salaries are on the Consolidated Fund or not. It is, of course, true that there is a difference between salaries which are on the
Consolidated Fund and salaries which are on the Votes. If there were no difference in practice, we should not have made a difference in the Bill. Since it is provided that the terms of the appointment of the board will be expressed in the Warrant of their appointment, it follows that this is a matter again which can be discussed in Committee. What is the position of those members of the board whose salaries are on the Consolidated Fund? Obviously, the salaries cannot be discussed on the Votes. The policy of the board, of course, can be discussed on the report which the board is bound to make, and on various other occasions. As to the members of the board, if the terms of the Warrant of their appointment provide that they shall hold office for a definite term of years, then they are irremovable during that term of years. They can only be removed by their own consent. That is the position. Of course, the idea is to give them a definite position of security, because this is a provision which both adds to the dignity of the office and ensures to those holding it, and who may have been asked to give up some other remunerative employment, that they shall not be exposed to the danger of finding that they have lost what they had before, and are deprived of the salary of the office which they have taken. With regard to questions, I certainly think questions can be put down about the acts and procedure of the staffs who are not on the Consolidated Fund. Their salaries will have to be voted and therefore the position of those not on the Consolidated Fund is completely under the control of Parliament. With regard to the members of the board, therefore, the position is as I have stated. They will be irremovable, but only during the term of years, for which each one will, according to the terms of his appointment, be in office.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the term of office been decided?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter which may be discussed in Committee. It will be possible to put down Amendments to vary the terms of the appointments and by the time we reach that point in the Schedules I hope we may be in a position to give the Committee a great deal more information as to our intentions and possibly as to the personnel of the board than I am able to
give now. There are many points still undecided but before the hon. Member has the opportunity of discussing that matter in Committee I hope we may be able to give him a great deal of information which will perhaps satisfy his curiosity—at least to some extent.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the appointment for a certain number of years mean that there could be no curtailment of their powers during that period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It means that they would be irremovable during that period.

Mr. LOGAN: But would Parliament have no power, year by year, to make any curtailment of their powers, although you give them a fixed term of tenure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not fully apprehend what the hon. Member's question means. I thought I had stated it plainly. The terms of the appointment will state that it is to be for a certain number of years at so much a year but that salary is to be on the Consolidated Fund.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman said the actions of the board could be discussed on the presentation of the report and on other Parliamentary occasions. Can it be discussed on the Minister's salary?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Expenditure, of course, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, can be discussed but not the salaries of the board.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Their policy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Policy, certainly.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: The amount of Debate that has taken place to-night seems to be an indication that there has not yet been allotted to this House the amount of time that it requires. I merely rise, however, to express our dissatisfaction with the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He did not make plain to us that the unemployed man is not being placed by this Financial Resolution and the legislation that will emerge from it in an inferior position to every other citizen who
suffered some loss at the time of the National Government taking office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the hon. Member for Gorbals speaking about a possible surplus that would be available when the first Budget came along. I can understand the Chancellor's objections to that, although the speeches that he has been making recently in the country have certainly raised very high hopes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said nothing about next year at all in any speech that I have made in the country. What I have said was that there was likely to be a substantial surplus on this year.

Mr. MAXTON: Unless we are talking about something different, when the right hon. Gentleman says "this year," I am thinking about this year too, the year that we are in just now. He has been making speeches which indicate that he is anticipating to finish this year and make his Budget statement under very cheerful auspices. He will have to get back to one of his lugubrious "10 years" speeches to get the mind of the country to a right average, because I am certain that large sections of the community, teachers, other civil servants, Income Taxpayers, and so on, are all anticipating, not something 12 months hence, but something in this Budget statement that is coming along. I am sure the big majority of the people in this House and in the country will agree with me that that is the mind of the community with reference to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been saying in recent months. If he has been over-enthusiastic, then let him take an early opportunity to moderate his enthusiasm.
But whether there is a surplus or not, the point is this, that in the next Budget statement, if there is a surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his own act can restore cuts to civil servants and can make cuts in Income Tax, but by their legislation which we are passing just now, he debars himself from doing it. Even if there is a surplus, he is giving the cuts on the unemployed a statutory position that no other cut has, and he is putting the unemployed in this position, that while a Budget surplus can lead to the restora-
tion of other cuts, it must be an Insurance Fund surplus here, and it is quite conceivable that at the end of this financial year there may be a Budget surplus, but there certainly will be no Insurance Fund surplus, because at the end of this financial year this Unemployment Bill that we are now discussing will not be on the Statute Book, let alone having had any time for its provisions to make any change or alteration in the state of the fund.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is running two arguments at once. If the Bill is not on the Statute Book, the power will not be in the hands of the board.

Mr. MAXTON: That is being clever; it is not being candid. Let us assume that this Bill becomes law two days before the end of the financial year. That is not being clever; it is our old friend the marginal case. It will be about that time, if I estimate the timetable correctly. We are coming back at the end of January with something like 18 allotted days. The maximum that we can have is only three weeks. I am not far wrong in estimating that this Bill will find its place on the Statute Book not very long before the end of the financial year.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: Suppose it does not go on to the Statute Book until three months after, and suppose there is a gradual diminution in unemployment, there is no reason why under the present Acts the cuts should not be restored.

Mr. MAXTON: There is no reason at all. If the Bill does not become law before the Budget statement, the Chancellor can restore the cuts, but, if it becomes law before the Budget, he has given away his power to restore the cuts. That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan); the unemployed are put in an inferior position to every other person who suffered cuts at the time of the national crisis, and it is not right. If any should be in a favoured position, they are the unemployed. They should come before the Income Tax payer, the highly-paid civil servants and the teachers. This legislation is definitely putting them on a lower scale.

Mr. HOWARD: Not definitely.

Mr. MAXTON: Quite definitely. If the legislation pursues its ordinary course, quite definitely it puts the unemployed on a lower level to the extent that they are statutorily on a lower level. The other cuts can be restored at any minute when the Chancellor makes up his mind, and the Government supports him, but the restoration of the cuts of the unemployed is to be dependent upon the state of a fund which is outwith the control of the House and of the Chancellor.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is not this position possible? Suppose the Committee report favourably on the fund, the cuts might be restored to the unemployed before the teachers or any of the other people could have theirs restored, and even to a greater extent than they.

Mr. MAXTON: It does not put them in that favoured position.

Captain STRICKLAND: The others must wait for the Budget.

Mr. MAXTON: They can be restored at any minute. The fact remains, however, that it is a bad principle, even though it were to work to the benefit of the unemployed, that a body outside Parliament altogether, judging a fund outside the control of Parliament, should be the effective body from which the restoration of the unemployed workers' cuts has to come. That is absolutely wrong in principle. It puts the Government in a wrong position, the House in a wrong position and, above all, puts the unemployed in a wrong position.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The conclusion I drew from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the number of unemployed in this country is to be taken as a barometer to register the prosperity of trade. Generally I think we would agree with that, but it is possible for unemployment to increase and for trade to become in some respects more prosperous. I refer, of course, to unemployment that may arise in certain industries. It would seem that the Chancellor also endeavoured to deny what has been very widely reported over the weekend, and that is, that he hoped for a surplus at the end of this financial year.
That is what was stated in a paper which has apparently reported accurately what he is supposed to have said. The Government cannot have it both ways. In this Bill they have certainly put the unemployed in a class apart from all the others who suffered "cuts." The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has covered Very faithfully what I intended to say and without repeating that speech I would only say that there seems to be very little hope that this Bill will get through before the end of the financial year. If this Bill had not been introduced and there had been a surplus at the end of the financial year I am certain that I am expressing the opinion of most Members present when I say they would have desired the unemployed to have a restoration of their "cuts" before any other class of persons. There is not much response to that statement, which I thought reflected to a large extent the views of all Members present in the House at the moment. Now that the Bill places the unemployed in a category apart, even if there is a Budget surplus at the end of the year, there is no prospect of a restoration of cuts for the unemployed, though there may be such a prospect for other classes.
During the week end there was a conference in Cardiff of representatives of distressed areas, and speech after speech there referred to what had been said by the Minister of Health in April and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th July, I think it was, in this House. Representatives of the distressed areas who have had occasion to visit London to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Health all concurred in this—that they expected, from what had been said to them, that the burden now being borne in accordance with the formula in this Bill, that is based on the 1932 position, would have been borne by the nation and not by those distressed areas. We appreciate, of course, that distressed areas had a grant. Out of the £ 440,000 granted some time ago, Glamorgan had roughly £66,000; but that has nothing to do with this issue at all. Even after receiving that sum, Glamorgan is faced with a very heavy burden indeed. I have had occasion to stress the fact here before, as also have my colleagues in South Wales, that Glamorgan has a Poor Law rate of 8s. 5d. in the pound. They
are still faced with that enormous burden and will have to carry it, and it is the heavier because the rateable values are falling speedily, year by year. During the last three years they have fallen enormously—by over £700,000. Collieries are closing—it is true that they only pay 25 per cent. of their rateable value under the Derating Act—they are going into liquidation; large firms are going out of commission; businesses are vacant, and local authorities, because of their decreased rates, are finding that they have these heavier burdens thrust upon them at an ever accelerating pace year by year.
We are hoping that the Government will take some steps in this matter. This seems to be the last chance we have to place our views before the House. The distressed areas are certainly dissatisfied. I am amazed at the speeches we have heard, especially that of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie). Durham is still the heaviest-rated area for Poor Law purposes in the country, with 9s. 1d., and yet he had cause to congratulate the Government on their beneficent action during the last few months in relieving the local authorities of some of their burdens.

Mr. DICKIE: All I did was to point out that the local government rates in Durham were relieved to the extent of £94,000.

Mr. PARKINSON: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman—and he ought to know it—that that £94,000 is not equal to the actual amount of increased cost since this Government came into office?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. However, I do not want to stress that point any further. We can see in this Bill the stabilisation of the cuts for the unemployed, and that there is no hope that they will get anything like the other people should some surplus occur at the end of the financial year. Further, we are definitely opposed to the fact that you are at this stage gagging the unemployed throughout the country, depriving them of any opportunity of voicing, through their elected representatives locally and apparently also through their
Members of Parliament, their grievances and hardships. We are certainly not satisfied with what the Chancellor has said, and we are making our last protest on this matter in opposition to this Financial Resolution.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. MACMILLAN: Had it not been for the gibe which the hon. Member thought fit to level at the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), I should not have intervened. At any rate, he cannot level that gibe at me. I had the misfortune to sit for a considerable number of hours waiting for this Resolution to be taken, and at the end of that time I am not afraid to say that I am quite unfit to make any contribution, however humble, to the Eesolution which came before the House last Thursday. I wish, however, to touch briefly on two points. The first is with regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in connection with the relief of burdens upon local authorities, and what is to be carried by the Exchequer. I was much interested, and I think that the House was also interested, in the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, who brought some very interesting facts and figures before the House. I believe that it was understood from the declarations of the Government in April and July of this year that the care of the able-bodied unemployed was henceforth to be a national charge, and wholly a national charge. It may have been that those declarations were governed by certain sentences which were capable of interpretation and upon which the Government now rely, but every hon. Member who heard them, and every citizen of the country who read them, believed that the only adjustment to which the Government referred was the weighting of the unemployed that would be necessary, and that the whole care of the able-bodied unemployed was to be carried by the Exchequer.
Surely if it is a matter of principle, and not one of conflicting benefits or gains, that the Exchequer shall be responsible for 100 per cent. of the care of the able-bodied unemployed, the relative gains of different towns or parts of the country is a consideration that does not enter into the argument. Much as I welcome the Resolution and the Bill as a
whole, I deplore the fact that the Government have not seen fit to do the generous thing, take a big line, and say that they will take 100 per cent. care of the unemployed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed the opportunity of doing the thing upon a broad scale. He is prepared to take 95 per cent. care of the unemployed, but he still boggles about the 5 per cent. He says that it is an important point of principle that the local authorities should be to some extent financially interested. I believe that there is a principle long established in our history that the authority which raises and controls a service also raises the money for that service. This service is to be controlled by a national authority. On what principle is it that the local authorities are to be asked to pay their contribution towards it? Here was an opportunity for making a great gesture, and it has been missed. The right hon. Gentleman is like a timid lover who would revise the marriage service, and who says to his bride: "With 95 per cent. of my goods I thee endow; the other 5 per cent. you can look after yourself."
May I be allowed, after those criticisms, to end upon a note of congratulation. I listened with great relief to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the restoration of the full amount of benefit. It is not a question as to the statutory distinction between one class of people and another. Under Part I of the Bill the unemployed may be in a

different category, but all that they care is whether they get their benefit at the same time as other people. That is the thing that matters. They do not mind whether they get their benefit by a direct act of the Chancellor or through an indirect act of the Commission. Reading between the lines, as it were, of the Chancellor's statement, I think that there is great encouragement to many of us and to the country. It would be against the public conscience if there were a remission of direct taxation, or a restoration of the cuts of other classes of people, without it being accompanied by a restoration of the amounts of benefit to the unemployed. We believe that if there is money to spare, be it in the Exchequer or the fund, it should go first to the lowest-paid and humblest classes of the people, who have suffered most from the crisis of 1931, and who are living, as we all know, just upon the borderline of being able to keep alive at all. From what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I think we may take courage and feel that, when revisions of taxation or restorations of wages are made in the case of the better-to-do classes in the country, they will be accompanied in point of time, if not in executive detail, by a restoration of benefit to those who are unemployed.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 54.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[12.1 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks.,Newb'y)
Dickie, John P.


Albery, Irving James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drewe, Cedric


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Burghley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duggan, Hubert John


Atholl, Duchess of
Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Dunglass, Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balniel, Lord
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Carver, Major William H.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Bateman, A. L.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Elmley, Viscount


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst


Blindell, James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Boulton, W. W.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Flint, Abraham John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Conant, R. J. E.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bracken, Brendan
Craven-Ellis, William
Gibson, Charles Granville


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cross, R. H.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crossley, A. C.
Goff, Sir Park


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Goldie, Noel B.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Graves, Marjorie
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Grimston, R. V.
Martin, Thomas B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Scone, Lord


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hanley, Dannie A.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbart M.
Morgan, Robert H.
Skeiton, Archibald Noel


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Soper, Richard


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Munro, Patrick
Spens, William Patrick


Hornby, Frank
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Horobin, Ian M.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stevenson, James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William
Stones, James


Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Connor, Terence James
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Strauss, Edward A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Penny, Sir George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hunter, Dr. Joeeph (Dumfries)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sngden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Petherick, M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Picklord, Hon. Mary Ada
Thompson, Luke


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Potter, John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ker, J. Campbell
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Law, Sir Alfred
Pybue, Percy John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ralkee, Henry V. A. M.
Train, John


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rankin, Robert
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunlifte.
Ray, Sir William
Weymouth, Viscount


Llewellin, Major John J.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lockwood, Capt J. H. (Shipley)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rickards, George William
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Windeor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynrmouth)
Wise, Alfred R.


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Womersley, Walter James


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeeton)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)



Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Salmon, Sir Isidore
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Salt, Edward W.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward and Lord Erskine.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Alien


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Maj, Rt. Hn.SIr A. (C'thnees)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McGovern, John
Wilmot, John


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Griffith, F. Klngsley (Middiesbro'.W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lanceiot
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Cordon Macdonald.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee,

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS, 1931 AND 1933.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933, for
regulating the marketing of potatoes, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 4th day of December, 1933, be approved."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, "That tfce Debate be now adjourned."

I understand that this course is convenient to the Front Bench opposite in order that they may be able to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to this business.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I am glad this evening to be able to fall in with the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and, therefore, when I sit down, I shall be able to accept the Motion which has just been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, provided that the House will agree in all quarters that to-morrow night we shall report Progress at, say, roughly half-past Ten o'clock, and that after that we shall conclude, at a not late hour, the Debate on the Potato Order. If that course can be agreed to in all quarters, I shall be prepared to accept the Motion.

Sir S. CRIPPS: As far as we are concerned, we shall certainly agree with it, and I understand that my hon. Friends below the Gangway will also agree, but whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can control his own Scottish contingent, we cannot say!

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Torquay and Paignton Gas Company, which was presented on the 29th day of November and publised, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Clyde Valley Gas Supply Company, Limited, which was presented on the 5th day of December and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Blackpool Corporation, which was presented on the 5th day of December and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Southampton Gaslight and Coke Company, which was presented on the 29th day of November and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Orders of the Day — FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

Orders of the Day — POWERS OF DISINHERITANCE BILL.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fifteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.